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 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, [N] Arbitrators is/are recused and [N] is/are inactive, so [N] 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

Place those on the discussion page.

Proposed temporary injunctions

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

Verified information

1) Contentious facts which cannot be verified as having been published in a reputable source cannot be included in a Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Verifiability, see especially Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious_sources. Information should have been published in a reliable source Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In the case of unusual or scandalous assertions this becomes even more important, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_evidence

Support:

Fred Bauder 16:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 21:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked the above (information -> "contentious facts") →Raul654 21:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly Martin (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 00:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Probation

2) Users whose activities are disruptive with respect to particular articles or topics may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation which permits administrators to ban them from those articles where their activities have been disruptive.

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.

Onefortyone placed on Probation

1) Onefortyone is placed on Wikipedia:Probation with respect to the biographies of celebrities. He may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement of probation

1) Should Onefortyone edit any article he is banned from he may be blocked for a short period of time (up to a week in the case of repeat offenses)

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

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 Fred Bauder 15:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
→Raul654 19:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 00:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Close, yes. James F. (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Close ➥the Epopt 20:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]