all proposed

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, no Arbitrators are recused and 5 are inactive, so 4 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

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

No personal attacks

1) Personal attacks on other users are unacceptable, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 16:13, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
2. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. →Raul654 03:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutrality^talk 00:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Assume good faith

2) Wikipedia editors are required to be courteous to other users and to assume good faith on the part of other users.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 16:13, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
2. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. →Raul654 03:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutrality^talk 00:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Banning for disruptive behavior

3) A Wikipedia user may be banned from editing an article where their activities have been disruptive.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 16:13, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
2. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. →Raul654 03:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutrality^talk 00:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Personal attacks by Zen-master

1) Zen-master (talk · contribs) has made a number of personal attacks on the other editors of race and intelligence, been discourteous and has assumed bad faith on their part [1] [2] [3]. He also attacks books and scholars which deal with the subject matter such as The Bell Curve [4].

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 16:29, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
2. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. →Raul654 03:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Those links prove nothing. Zen-master has argued forcefully and reasonable for his position, using links and statements of fact. He may be aggressive, but I see little to support this finding. Neutrality^talk 03:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Disruptive edits

2. Zen-master (talk · contribs) has edited race and intelligence in a disruptive manner both in the article itself and on related pages such as Talk:Race and intelligence [5]. While he complains regarding improper framing of the article, he cites references which frame the subject in terms of a struggle between "Fascism" and "Communism" [6].

Support:

1. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 11:40, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
3. James F. (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. →Raul654 03:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. See above. Neutrality^talk 00:58, 10 October 2005 (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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Zen-master placed on probation

1) Zen-master (talk · contribs) is placed on probation for one year, and during that time may be banned from any article which relates to race and intelligence if in the opinion of any administrator his editing is disruptive. This may include the talk page of race and intelligence, see Wikipedia:Probation.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 16:36, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
2. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. →Raul654 03:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Disruptive is rather nebulous for this case. Neutrality^talk 00:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Zen-master banned

1) Zen-master (talk · contribs) is banned for one week for personal attacks.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:59, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
2. ➥the Epopt 22:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. →Raul654 03:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. No. Neutrality^talk 03:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

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. I think we are done Fred Bauder 12:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Concur ➥the Epopt 13:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. →Raul654 15:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Yup. James F. (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, closed. James F. (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]