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.

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 3 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.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

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

Proposed principles[edit]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

1) Wikipedia is not a proper forum for extensive presentation of a viewpoint regarding a contemporary political controversy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 18:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 07:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 21:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Neutral point of view

2) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a subject.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 18:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 07:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 21:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Fair representation

3) Fair representation of a significant point of view regarding a subject requires that sufficient space to adequately set forth a summary of the reliable and verifiable information available regarding that viewpoint. Determining the amount of space (or subsidiary articles) is not amenable to a formula.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Though we might want to say "without leading to adverse dominance in treatment" - a particularly complex point of view, were it signficantly minor, should not end up being the majority of the subject of an article merely due to the necessary verbiage to "adequately set [it] forth".[reply]
  3. SimonP 18:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 07:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 21:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Summary of knowledge

4) Wikipedia articles are a summary of generally accepted knowledge regarding a subject.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per Simon, but also, Wikipedia articles are more than the generally accepted views, if NPOV. The minority (but not insignificant) views must bee represented. Dmcdevit·t 07:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 21:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Wikipedia's goals are accuracy and neutrality. This almost always coincides with the generally accepted truth, but there are definite instances where the conventional view is not the most accurate. I think this can be better worded. - SimonP 18:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As per SimonP Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Established practices

5) Arbitration decisions take into consideration "Established Wikipedia customs and common practices".

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 18:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 07:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 21:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Point of view forks

6) Wikipedia customs and common practices have come to include articles which are point of view forks in the case of controversial subjects.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. James F. (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC) I'm not sure that this is a "common practice" - "rare" would fit the bill. It certainly isn't a "custom", AFAIAA.[reply]
  2. We may have many "Criticisms of ..." articles, but these are NPOV articles discussing criticisms, not critical forks of the main articles. - SimonP 18:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dmcdevit·t 07:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 13:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. ➥the Epopt 21:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article probation

7) Articles which are of low quality due to point of view editing, sustained edit warring, or other quality and policy issues may be placed on Wikipedia:Article probation. The Arbitration Committee may continue to exercise jurisdiction over such articles until the major problems with the articles have been resolved by the Wikipedia editing process.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. It is outside the Arbcom's mandate to adopt an article and enforce quality standards. If we did this, there would be no way of not interfering directly in content disputes. - SimonP 18:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that we've done it before. James F. (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We have certainly imposed restrictions against user behaviour at certain articles, but have we ever ruled that an article was of such low quality that it needed an Arbcom enforced drive to improve it? I note that the policy page in question, Wikipedia:Article probation, was created only moments before this vote. At the very least that page should get some sort of community vetting before we add it to the Arbitration Policy. - SimonP 19:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, for the entire suite of LaRouche articles, no less. James F. (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a new remedy which I am proposing. Fred Bauder 21:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 21:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Prefer 7.1. Dmcdevit·t 07:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Prefer 7.1 Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revised

7.1) Where user conduct issues seem to revolve around a single or small set of articles, and where there are a large number of editors involved, and those editors are not disruptive otherwise, it may make more sense to put the article or articles themselves on probation rather than individual editors. Administrators are empowered to block or ban editors from editing the article(s) for misconduct like edit warring, incivility, original research, or other disruption relating to the article on probation.

Support:
  1. Struggling with wording here, but I think this one is better. Dmcdevit·t 07:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 09:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 18:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC) I suppose, if we must. Sub-optimal way of putting it.[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 21:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC) I modified the wording a bit, to clean up the grammar and narrow the scope.[reply]
  7. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Opinions on current affairs

8) Personal opinions on current affairs are not acceptable content for a Wikipedia article, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC) But perhaps "Opinions on the subject matter, including on current affairs ..."?[reply]
  3. SimonP 18:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Added "personal" opinions, take it back if that was at all controversial. Dmcdevit·t 07:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 21:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

The use of links to newspaper articles as references

9) If a newspaper article is used as a source the article shall be identified by name of the newspaper, date of publication, and title of the article (and preferably the author as well). The use of links to online versions of a newspaper may become dead links and nearly useless without adequate identification of the article.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC) This is best practice, certainly, and it is sensible to encourage users to continue so to contribute.[reply]
  3. SimonP 18:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 07:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 21:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Determination of significance of point of view

10) Determination of whether a point of view or opinion regarding a matter is significant is measured by the degree to which that point of view or opinion has been published by reliable verifiable sources. It is not measured by the strength or significance attached to it by the Wikipedia editors which share that point of view.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Absolutely.[reply]
  3. SimonP 18:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 07:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 21:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of this dispute is the article 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities and its sub-articles:

See also 2004 United States election voting controversies

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 18:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 07:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 21:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

A significant viewpoint

2) The viewpoint that there were irregularities in the conduct of the 2004 U.S. presidential election is a significant topic regarding which there is substantial public interest, thus fair coverage is appropriate.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. James F. (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC) This is a content decision.[reply]
  2. I agree with the sentiment, but this is a rulling on content. - SimonP 18:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dmcdevit·t 07:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 21:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Content. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Length and extent of the articles

3) The articles in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election/Proposed decision#Locus of dispute are lengthy, go into great detail, and are divided into a number of sub-articles.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. True, but there is nothing at all inherently wrong with long detailed articles. SimonP 18:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. James F. (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC) This is a content decision. Even if it is true. :-)[reply]
  2. Per James. Dmcdevit·t 07:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 21:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Irrelevant. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I can'r see the point of this one. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adequacy of Phil Sandifer's complaint

4) The complaints of Phil Sandifer are sufficiently detailed and specific to adequately describe the major problems which exist with respect to the articles which are the subject of this arbitration, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election/Evidence#Original Research and [1]

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. We shouldn't rule on the accuracy of the complaints about content, but I think we can say that enough problems were raised to justify the NPOV dispute tag. SimonP 18:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that I can say that the "adequacy" was fulfilled, however. James F. (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 21:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. James F. (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC) This is a content decision.[reply]
  2. I see where this is going, see my alternate proposal. Dmcdevit·t 07:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prefer 4.1 Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Revised

4.1) Phil Sandifer has adequately justified his addition of the NPOV tag by providing his reasoning as to why the text was a violation of the NPOV policy. [2] The NPOV tag continued to be removed afterwards. [3]

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 07:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 09:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 18:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Yes, this is much better wording - thanks, Dom![reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 21:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Position of Kevin baas

5) It is the belief of Kevin baas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that the significance of the subject matter of the articles is sufficient to over-ride Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy [4]. Thus, according to him, there is a duty to bring this matter to the attention of the public using Wikipedia as the vehicle.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. He is admittedly using Wikipedia to bring greater prominence to this subject, but one can do this while still writing an NPOV article. Quite a number of Featured Articles are brought to the main page because the creator wants more users to know about a certain subject. SimonP 18:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree with Simon. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I don't know what his beliefs are; I'm here to look at behavior ➥the Epopt 13:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Irrelevant. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revised

5.1) Kevin baas has stated, in opposition to current NPOV policy, that the significance of a point of view ought to be measured by the amount of support among those who know about a particular minority theory, as in the 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, and not the amount of support among the general population or experts in the field. This belief guides his defense of the text of 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities and related articles.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 07:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 09:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 21:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. In what way is an expert in the field different from those who know about a particular minority theory? I don't think Kevin Baas believes he is opposing current NPOPV policy.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree with Theresa. - SimonP 20:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Abstain:

RyanFreisling and Noosphere

6) RyanFreisling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Noosphere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have supported Kevin baas in defense of the current state of the articles under dispute.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 18:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 07:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 21:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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.

Editing recommendation

1) It is recommended that the articles which are the subject of this proceeding, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election/Proposed decision#Locus of dispute, be consolidated and summarized with excessive detail removed.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. James F. (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC) This is a content decision. But a sensible suggestion, speaking strictly in my personal capacity.[reply]
  2. Agree with James, a good idea but not our call. SimonP 18:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dmcdevit·t 07:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 21:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. As per James F. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Article probation

2) Due to their poor quality the articles which are the locus of dispute, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election/Proposed decision#Locus of dispute, are placed on Wikipedia:Article probation. The Arbitration Committee shall continue to exercise jurisdiction over them until their bloated and propagandistic nature has been resolved by the Wikipedia editing process.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Imperfect, but I'm not sure how better to put it.[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Enforcing civility and preventing edit wars are all well and good, but deciding when an article is no longer "bloated and propagandistic" is a content decision, and would force us to make rulings on article quality and content. - SimonP 18:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the wording is sub-optimal, but... James F. (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 21:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prefer 2.1. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Not sure about this one, see new proposal. Dmcdevit·t 07:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revised

2.1) Articles which are the locus of dispute, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election/Proposed decision#Locus of dispute, are placed on probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, incivilty, and original research. The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to appoint one or more mentors at any time, and will review the situation in one year.

Support:
  1. New wording, stressing conduct issues, more precise about what will be done and when it will end. Dmcdevit·t 07:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 09:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 18:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 21:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Much better. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Status of current editors

3) The editors involved in this Arbitration proceeding may continue to edit the articles using the wiki process.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Well, err, yes. :-)[reply]
  3. Dmcdevit·t 07:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SimonP 18:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 21:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Remand to mediation

4) This matter is remanded to mediation.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 07:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Offered Fred Bauder 11:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Continuing jurisdiction

1) If the articles are not substantially improved by continued editing the Arbitration Committee may impose editing restrictions on users whose editing is counterproductive or disruptive.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Although it doesn't really need to be said.[reply]
  3. We always have the power to impose restrictions on counterproductive and disruptive users. - SimonP 18:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 07:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 21:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

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. Close. Dmcdevit·t 23:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close Fred Bauder 00:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close. James F. (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close. Jayjg (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Close ➥the Epopt 13:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


More