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, 1 Arbitrator is recused (David Gerard) and 4 are inactive (Mav, Theresa Knott, Sannse, Nohat), 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.
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.
1) All users are welcome to suggest changes to Wikipedia policies such as Wikipedia:No personal attacks. However suggested changes or interpretations do not become policy unless they are adopted by community consensus.
2) Article talk pages are intended for discussion of editing and sources cited in the article they are attached to. In the course of such discussion, such dialogue may properly include information about editing behavior.
3) The remove personal attacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. [1]. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly.
Account which exhibit the same pattern of behavior can be treated as one user
4) In instances where a user or small group of users with the same behavior pattern have used a number of accounts, for the purposes of Arbitration, they may be treated as one user.
3) AI (talk·contribs) has removed dialogue a number of times from article talk pages in what they describe as refactoring [4][5][6], this behavior has included edit warring on talk pages [7][8]. In contradiction to Wikipedia:No personal attacks he has adapted his own idiosyncratic version of the policy which he has attempted to apply. This has interfered with communications with other users [9], [10][11][12][13][14][15][16].
6) AI (talk·contribs) states that he is involved in a dispute with Wikipedia, declaring his intention to "destroy Wikipedia" by "legal means" [20], [21][22].
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:
AI prohibited from "refactoring"
1) AI (talk·contribs) is prohibited from removing dialogue of any sort from any talk page or rearranging any talk page, including material which, in AI's opinion, constitute "personal comments" or personal attacks. This does not apply to their own user talk page.
2) AI is prohibited from editing any article related to the Church of Scientology. If they should violate this, an admin may ban them for a short period (up to 24 hours). For repeat offenses, they may be banned for up to a week per violation.
3) AI (talk·contribs) shall use that account and no other for editing. Extended editing by any anonymous IP which exhibits the behavior associated with User:AI shall be considered to be the edits of AI for purposes of application of this decision.
1) AI (talk·contribs) may be briefly banned if they removes any dialogue from any talk page other than their own user page. In the case of repeat offenses a ban may be up to a week.
2) Should AI (talk·contribs) edit under any other user account or for any extended period as an anonymous IP they may be banned for a month, and up to a year in the case of repeat offenses.
3) Pending final resolution of all legal disputes between AI and Wikipedia, any edit by AI under any user name or anonymous IP may be removed immediately by any editor.
The decisions I have proposed address only the problems cited by those who filed the request for arbitration. There are obviously other problems, for example, POV editing. Fred Bauder 15:16, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
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.
move to close ➥the Epopt 14:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]