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 she/he 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 5 are inactive, so 5 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

Assume good faith

1) Assume good faith requires users to relate to other users upon the basis that they are here to work productively on the creation of an information resource, not simply to advance their point of view.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 15:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Dmcdevit·t 18:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

NPOV

2) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair expression of all significant points of view regarding a matter. Minor points of view should be presented, but only in proportion to their significance.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 15:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Dmcdevit·t 18:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Bans due to disruption

3) Users who disrupt an article or type of articles by tendentious editing may be banned from those articles, in extreme cases from Wikipedia.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 15:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Dmcdevit·t 18:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Courtesy

4) Users are required to be reasonably courteous to other users, especially those with whom they may disagree.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 15:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Dmcdevit·t 18:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Negotiation

5) Users need to be able to negotiate successfully with other users with differing perspectives if they wish to edit articles in controversial areas on which they hold strong opinion.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 15:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Dmcdevit·t 18:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of this dispute is edits by Jacrosse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to Neoconservatism which relate to its alleged origins in the Trotskyist ideas of Max Shachtman, which edits are alleged to be original research. "Indeed, it has been suggested that much of the history of neoconservatism can be explained as a classic Leninist takeover of first the American left and then the American right by the followers of Max Shachtman Speech by Justin Raimondo"

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 15:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Dmcdevit·t 18:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Personal attacks and discourtesy by Jacrosse

2) Jacrosse has been discourteous [1], [2], and [3] and has made personal attacks [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], and [13]

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 15:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Dmcdevit·t 18:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Justin Raimondo

3) Jacrosse, if he is not Justin Raimondo himself, advances positions which are similar to those of Justin Raimondo, a minor public figure who takes a conservative anti-war stance. See Raimondo's hatchet job on Front Page Magazine, his anti-war website, and current leading article.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 15:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Dmcdevit·t 18:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Expression of minor viewpoint

4) Although ascribed to Michael Lind, rather than Justin Raimondo, the view that Neoconservatism has roots in Trotskyism is included in Neoconservatism#Left-wing roots of Neoconservative organizations.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 15:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Though possibly irrelevant to the conduct issue at hand. Dmcdevit·t 18:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Sustained edit warring by Jacrosse

5) Jacrosse has engaged in sustained edit warring, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jacrosse/Evidence#Evidence presented by Thames.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 15:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Dmcdevit·t 18:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Failure to negotiate in good faith

6) Based on political considerations, Jacrosse has expressed his unwillingness to negotiate with a Wikipedia user in good standing [14].

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 15:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Dmcdevit·t 18:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

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.

Jacrosse banned from politics

1) Jacrosse is banned for one year from articles which concern politics. He may make suggestions or comments on talk pages.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 15:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Dmcdevit·t 18:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Jacrosse placed on probation

2) Jacrosse is placed indefinitely on probation. He may be banned for good cause by any administrator from any article or talk page. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jacrosse#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 15:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Dmcdevit·t 18:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Jacrosse placed on general probation

3) Jacrosse is placed on general probation. Any three administrators for good cause may ban him from and area of editing such as politics or from Wikipedia. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jacrosse#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 15:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Dmcdevit·t 18:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Jacrosse placed on personal attack parole

4) Jacrosse placed on personal attack parole. He may be briefly blocked if he makes personal attacks, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jacrosse#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 15:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Dmcdevit·t 18:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enforcement by block

1) Any ban made shall be enforced by brief blocks, for up to a week for repeat offenses. After five blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. Blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jacrosse#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 15:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Dmcdevit·t 18:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:20, 8 May 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.

Everything passes 5-0. --Tony Sidaway 17:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Everything has passed; close. James F. (talk) 09:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Close. Charles Matthews 13:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Close. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Close Fred Bauder 13:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]