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, no Arbitrators are recused and one is 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.

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.

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) Given the large and diverse body of Wikipedia administrators, controversial articles which are the subject of sustained and intractable edit wars may be protected but continue to be edited by administrators.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. "May"? Yes, in the meaning of "can", but not in the meaning of "should". James F. (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
2. The use of permanent article protection as a means to avoid edit wars should be highly discouraged. I think we should just drop this discussion entirely, especially since semiprotection is now available. Kelly Martin ( talk) 04:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 00:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Agreed. Dmcdevit· t 08:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Charles Matthews 09:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

2) Analogous to Wikipedia:Autobiography, the editing of an article involving one's personal project, business, website, webcomic, or micronation may result in disruption of the article, and in extreme cases, in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
3. Kelly Martin ( talk) 04:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
4. ➥the Epopt 00:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Dmcdevit· t 08:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Charles Matthews 09:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) It is impossible for practical purposes to block certain users.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
3. Kelly Martin ( talk) 04:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
4. ➥the Epopt 00:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Dmcdevit· t 08:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Charles Matthews 09:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) The locus of this dispute is edit warring and POV editing of Dominion of Melchizedek and related articles. The edit warring is sustained, and marked by aggressive editing by Johnski and a host of apparent associates.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
3. Kelly Martin ( talk) 04:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
4. ➥the Epopt 00:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Dmcdevit· t 08:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Charles Matthews 09:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) Johnski, and his numerous puppets, are reasonably believed to be associated with the Dominion of Melchizedek and are capable of using a wide variety of IPs to access Wikipedia.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
3. Kelly Martin ( talk) 04:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
4. ➥the Epopt 00:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Dmcdevit· t 08:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Charles Matthews 09:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:24, 30 January 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.

1) Dominion of Melchizedek and associated articles shall be protected but may be edited by administrators. A template shall be created and used showing that status and a page created listing articles in this status. They may be briefly unprotected from time to time to test whether they remains the focus of edit warriors. Protection may be extended to the talk pages if necessary.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. James F. (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC) See below. reply
2. Kelly Martin ( talk) 04:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 00:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Dmcdevit· t 08:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Charles Matthews 09:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1.1) Dominion of Melchizedek and associated articles shall be protected but working, unprotected versions should be created, and administrators should synchronise the articles with the working pages as and when appropriate. A template shall be created and used showing that status, and a page created listing articles in this status. They may be briefly unprotected from time to time to test whether they remain the focus of edit warriors. Protection may be extended to the talk pages if necessary.

Support:

1. James F. (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC) This is how the www.wikipedia.org template on meta is edited, for instance. reply

Oppose:

1. Given that semiprotection is now available, oppose in favor of semiprotection. Kelly Martin ( talk) 04:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
2. ➥the Epopt 00:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Dmcdevit· t 08:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 09:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

2) Dominion of Melchizedek and associated articles, shall be semi-protected. If necessary, Johnski ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), or any other editor believed by an administrator to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Johnski, may be blocked indefinitely by any administrator.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC) Second choice reply
2. James F. (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
3. Kelly Martin ( talk) 04:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC) (note: removed conditional language, added sockpuppet/meatpuppet language) reply
4. ➥the Epopt 00:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Charles Matthews 09:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. In favor of 2.1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. See my slightly expanded wording below, so that the protection is not infinite. Dmcdevit· t 08:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply

2.1) Dominion of Melchizedek and associated articles, shall be semi-protected. If necessary, Johnski ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), or any other editor believed by an administrator to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Johnski, may be blocked indefinitely by any administrator. The article may be unprotected (and reprotected) at the discretion of any admin who deems it safe to do so.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit· t 08:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 13:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. James F. (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC) Yes, sensible. reply
5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. ➥the Epopt 14:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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. move to close ➥the Epopt 14:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Close. Dmcdevit· t 16:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Close. Charles Matthews 19:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Close. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Close Fred Bauder 03:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply