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 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, [N] Arbitrators is/are recused and [N] is/are inactive, so [N] 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 the discussion page.

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

Verified information

1) Contentious facts which cannot be verified as having been published in a reputable source cannot be included in a Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Verifiability, see especially Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious_sources. Information should have been published in a reliable source Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In the case of unusual or scandalous assertions this becomes even more important, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_evidence

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 16:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. ➥the Epopt 21:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. I've tweaked the above (information -> "contentious facts") →Raul654 21:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Probation

2) Users whose activities are disruptive with respect to particular articles or topics may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation which permits administrators to ban them from those articles where their activities have been disruptive.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 16:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. ➥the Epopt 21:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. →Raul654 21:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Gay celebrities

1) Onefortyone, usually editing as an anonymous IP in the 80.141 range, has added information to a number of articles concerning Hollywood and other celebrities regarding their sexual orientation.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 16:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. ➥the Epopt 21:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. →Raul654 21:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Sources cited by Onefortyone

2) The sources cited by Onefortyone vary in quality, some being of doubtful reliability, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone/Workshop#Sources_cited_by_Onefortyone

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 16:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. ➥the Epopt 21:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. →Raul654 21:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Original reseach by Onefortyone

3) In some instances Onefortyone has used sources as material to support conclusions which he has arrived at himself, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone/Workshop#Original_reseach_by_Onefortyone

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 16:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. ➥the Epopt 21:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. →Raul654 21:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Citing of nonexistent sources by Onefortyone

4) Onefortyone, in at least one instance, cites a source which does not exist in the form cited [1], see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone/Workshop#Citing_of_nonexistent_sources_by_Onefortyone

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 16:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. ➥the Epopt 21:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. →Raul654 21:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:09, 31 October 2005 (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.

Onefortyone placed on Probation

1) Onefortyone is placed on Wikipedia:Probation with respect to the biographies of celebrities. He may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 16:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. ➥the Epopt 21:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. →Raul654 21:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enforcement of probation

1) Should Onefortyone edit any article he is banned from he may be blocked for a short period of time (up to a week in the case of repeat offenses)

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 16:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. ➥the Epopt 21:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. →Raul654 21:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

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. Move to close Fred Bauder 15:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Concur. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. →Raul654 19:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Close, yes. James F. (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Close ➥the Epopt 20:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]