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

No personal attacks/Reasonable behavior

1) Personal attacks are expressly prohibited because they make Wikipedia a hostile environment for editors, and thereby damage Wikipedia both as an encyclopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion). Wikipedia editors should conduct their relationship with other editors with courtesy, and must avoid responding in kind when personally attacked.

Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably in their dealings with other users and to observe the principles of assuming good faith, civility, and the writers' rules of engagement. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.

Support:

1. Neutrality^talk 02:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 19:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Dmcdevit·t 05:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. ➥the Epopt 23:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Talk pages

2) While there is no specific rule prohibiting the blanking or removal of information from one's own talk pages, it is usually disapproved of (personal attacks and vandalism excepted). Refer to the user talk page policy.

Support:

1. Neutrality^talk 02:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 19:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Dmcdevit·t 05:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. ➥the Epopt 23:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Sockpuppetry

3) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability–and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize–is strictly forbidden.

Support:

1. Neutrality^talk 02:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 19:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Dmcdevit·t 05:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. ➥the Epopt 23:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Editing on Arbitration pages

4) Users must not make edits to Arbitration pages unless they are authorized to do so. Failure to follow this guideline may lead to an indefinite block at the discretion of the Arbitrators until the case is closed.

Support:

1. Neutrality^talk 02:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 19:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Dmcdevit·t 05:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. ➥the Epopt 23:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Neutral point of view

5) The neutral point of view is fundamental Wikipedia principle, and all editors must respect it.

Support:

1. Neutrality^talk 02:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 19:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Dmcdevit·t 05:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. ➥the Epopt 23:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Disruptive editors may be placed on Probation or banned

6) Users who engage in sustained aggressive point of view editing may be placed on Probation and/or banned from affected articles, in extreme cases, from Wikipedia.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Dmcdevit·t 05:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. ➥the Epopt 23:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Neutrality^talk 00:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of the dispute is edits by FourthAve (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to Jim Nussle, University of Dubuque, Bob Vander Plaats and related articles which relate to the politics of Iowa.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Dmcdevit·t 05:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. ➥the Epopt 23:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Personal attacks by FourthAve

2) FourthAve has made personal attacks [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], and [10].

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Dmcdevit·t 05:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. ➥the Epopt 23:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Tendentious editing by FourthAve

3) FourthAve has engaged in sustained aggressive point of view editing, often with a sexually based scandalous theme [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], and [26].

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Dmcdevit·t 05:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. ➥the Epopt 23:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Possible sockpuppet

4) FourthAve has apparently edited anonymously as IP 67.1.121.131, [27].

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Dmcdevit·t 05:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. ➥the Epopt 23:10, 25 April 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.

FourthAve placed on personal attack parole

1) FourthAve is indefinitely placed on personal attack parole. FourthAve may be briefly blocked should he make personal attacks, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Dmcdevit·t 05:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. ➥the Epopt 23:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

FourthAve banned from Wikipedia for one year

2) FourthAve is banned from Wikipedia for one year.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Dmcdevit·t 05:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. ➥the Epopt 23:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

FourthAve placed on probation

3) FourthAve is indefinitely placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article which he disrupts. Bans placed out under this remedy are to be recorded at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FourthAve#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Dmcdevit·t 05:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. ➥the Epopt 23:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

FourthAve placed on general probation

4) FourthAve is indefinitely placed on general probation. For good cause he may be banned from Wikipedia by any three administrators. Bans made under this remedy are to be recorded at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FourthAve#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Dmcdevit·t 05:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. ➥the Epopt 23:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enforcement by block

1) Should FourthAve violate any ban he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be recorded at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FourthAve#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Dmcdevit·t 05:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. ➥the Epopt 23:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

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.

Every proposal passes. Dmcdevit·t 23:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 23:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Close Fred Bauder 01:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Close. James F. (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Close ➥the Epopt 13:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]