all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

• Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
• Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
• Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if they so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, no arbitrators are recused and 3 are inactive, so 6 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Place those on /Workshop.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Bans for disruption

1) Users who disrupt articles or sets of articles by edit warring or otherwise may be banned from editing in that area, in extreme cases from the site.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 14:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Dmcdevit·t 05:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 14:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 19:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. James F. (talk) 12:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. ➥the Epopt 00:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Euphemistic language

2) Wikipedia is not censored. The words used in ordinary English usage to describe a subject may be used in Wikipedia.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 14:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Dmcdevit·t 05:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 14:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 19:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. James F. (talk) 12:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. ➥the Epopt 00:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Edit warring

3) Edit warring is considered harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. The three-revert rule should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to three reverts, nor does it endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 05:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 14:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 19:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. James F. (talk) 12:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. ➥the Epopt 00:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 11:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of the dispute is edits by Intangible (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to articles which relate to nationalist or right wing European political parties. It is alleged that Intangible engages in tendentious editing which minimizes the neo-fascist tendencies of such parties. Cberlet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and other have taken an opposing view.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 14:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Dmcdevit·t 05:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 14:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 19:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. James F. (talk) 12:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. ➥the Epopt 00:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Tendentious editing by Intangible

2) Intangible has engaged in tendentious editing [1] [2], [3], and [4], and [5]. There are many more examples on the evidence page. Many of these involve squeamishness about using the ordinary English words used to designate fascism [6].

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 14:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 19:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. This seems contenty. How am I to decide his edits were biased? It was his warring that was most problematic, not his contentions. Dmcdevit·t 05:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 14:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Dom. James F. (talk) 12:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 00:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Edit warring by Intangible

3) Intangible has engaged in edit warring, often without providing rationale for his reverts. He has also been blocked twice for edit warring. [7]

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 05:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 14:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 19:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. James F. (talk) 12:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Fred Bauder 12:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. ➥the Epopt 00:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 11:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Edit warring by Tazmaniacs

4) Tazmaniacs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit warring, often without providing rationale for his reverts. He has also been blocked twice for edit warring. [8]

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 05:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 14:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 19:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. James F. (talk) 12:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. ➥the Epopt 00:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 11:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Lack of evidence Fred Bauder 13:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Edit warring by AaronS

5) AaronS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit warring. He has also been blocked twice for edit warring. [9]

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 05:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 14:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 19:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. James F. (talk) 12:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. ➥the Epopt 00:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 11:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Lack of evidence Fred Bauder 13:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Intangible placed on Probation

1) Intangible is placed on Probation. He may be banned for appropriate periods from any article or set of articles which he disrupts by tendentious editing. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 14:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Dmcdevit·t 05:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 14:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 19:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. James F. (talk) 12:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. ➥the Epopt 00:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Tazmaniacs placed on Probation

2) Tazmaniacs is placed on Probation. He may be banned for appropriate periods from any article or set of articles which he disrupts by tendentious editing. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 05:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 19:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Fred Bauder 13:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. ➥the Epopt 00:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 11:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. The edit warring is a problem, but I don't see the same level of tendentiousness from this user. - SimonP 14:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Not as much of a problem; a strong caution might be more productive. James F. (talk) 12:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AaronS placed on Probation

3) AaronS is placed on Probation. He may be banned for appropriate periods from any article or set of articles which he disrupts by tendentious editing. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 05:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 19:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 12:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 00:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 11:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Fred Bauder 13:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. The edit warring is a problem, but I don't see the same level of tendentiousness from this user. - SimonP 14:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   He was blocked again for 3RR just yesterday. [10] Dmcdevit·t 06:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement by block

1) Should any user placed on Probation under this ruling violate any ban imposed under this decision, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. Blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. (modified woding to apply to all proposals) Dmcdevit·t 05:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. SimonP 14:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews 19:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. James F. (talk) 12:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. ➥the Epopt 00:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 11:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Initial notes

• Proposed principles: 1, 2 and 3 pass;
• Proposed facts: 1, 3, 4 and 5 pass, 2 fails.
• Proposed remedies: 1 passes; 2 fails; and 3 passes (an abstain is treated like a recusal, the new majority needed for that particular proposal is only 5).
• Proposed enforcement: 1 (only suggestion) passes.

Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

1. Close. Dmcdevit·t 01:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Close Charles Matthews 13:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Close Fred Bauder 17:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Close. James F. (talk) 05:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]