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, 0 Arbitrators are recused and 4 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

Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

1) As pointed out at Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose, there are unanticipated things a user can do which are disruptive. Such disruptive patterns are covered broadly by Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Dmcdevit·t 19:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. ➥the Epopt 21:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Multiple accounts created by PoolGuy

1) PoolGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created a great number of user accounts, see an incomplete list at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of PoolGuy.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Dmcdevit·t 19:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. ➥the Epopt 21:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Disruptive effect of multiple sockpuppets

2) The multiple user accounts created by PoolGuy have proved disruptive, drawing negative attention, especially from Nlu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Dmcdevit·t 19:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. ➥the Epopt 21:06, 15 June 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.

PoolGuy restricted to one user account

1) User PoolGuy shall use one user account. That user account may be PoolGuy or a new account which he may create in order to get a fresh start. Should he create a new account he need not disclose its name.

Support:

1. James F. (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Dmcdevit·t 19:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. ➥the Epopt 21:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Fred Bauder 02:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

PoolGuy placed on Probation

2) PoolGuy is placed indefinitely on Probation. He may be banned by any administrator from any article which he disrupts by disruptive editing. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PoolGuy#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. PoolGuy has been disruptive in his editing as well as in his sockpuppetting. Dmcdevit·t 19:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 21:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. James F. (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Fred Bauder 02:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Fresh start Fred Bauder 02:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

# Does this apply to an account created under 1? If not, this is inconsistent with previous user-not-account decisions; if so, making the account undisclosed doesn't make sense. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would think it would apply to a user, not the account, yes.. I would also think that a request on RFCU "of hey, is this PoolGuy; he's acting like it" would be accepted for the purposes of enforcement. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement by block

1) Should PoolGuy continue his past pattern of creating multiple user accounts he may be blocked until he abandons the pattern of creating multiple accounts.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Dmcdevit·t 19:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. ➥the Epopt 21:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Checkuser results logged

2) Checkuser has been run on PoolGuy and the results logged by Arbitration Committee member User:Fred Bauder for purposes of comparison should a question arise regarding continued creation of multiple accounts.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Dmcdevit·t 19:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. ➥the Epopt 21:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

Exactly how this started and who is right or wrong is irrelevant. It just needs to stop. NO MORE BEANS IN YOUR NOSE! Fred Bauder 14:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 passes, nothing more needed. James F. (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Close. Dmcdevit·t 19:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Aye. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Close Fred Bauder 23:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Close. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]