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 1 is inactive, so 8 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 Information

Personal attacks and incivility

1) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to other users, especially with respect to contested issues, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility. Users who habitually violate these policies may be banned from editing, either in a certain field or from all pages.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 18:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Dmcdevit· t 08:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC) reply
4. I modified the wording a little. Neutrality ^talk 06:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Charles Matthews 08:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC) reply
7. ➥the Epopt 22:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 21:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
9. James F. (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Tendentious editing

2) Users who engage in sustained, aggressive point-of-view editing may be banned from affected articles, in extreme cases from the entire site.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 18:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Dmcdevit· t 08:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Neutrality ^talk 06:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Though I'd prefer a better heading, I can't think of one myself. reply
6. Charles Matthews 08:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC) reply
7. ➥the Epopt 22:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 21:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
9. James F. (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Assume good faith

3) Users are expected to assume good faith with respect the other users, who share the common goal of creating a useful reference work. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 18:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Dmcdevit· t 08:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Neutrality ^talk 06:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Charles Matthews 08:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC) reply
7. ➥the Epopt 22:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 21:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
9. James F. (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Neutral Point Of View

4) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair expression of all significant points of view which relate to a subject.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 18:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Dmcdevit· t 08:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Neutrality ^talk 06:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Charles Matthews 08:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC) reply
7. ➥the Epopt 22:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 21:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
9. James F. (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Extreme points of view

5) Provided they are reasonably courteous and conform to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, users who hold views from any political viewpoint are valued members of the Wikipedia community.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 18:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Dmcdevit· t 08:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Neutrality ^talk 06:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC) (deleted "more or less" conform to - I don't see why that particularly applies, or why we should allow wiki-lawyers a get-out clause) reply
6. Charles Matthews 08:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC) reply
7. ➥the Epopt 22:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 21:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
9. James F. (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Editing controversial articles

6) There is a special burden imposed on those who choose to edit hotly contested articles. Extra effort must be made to be courteous, communicate adequately with other users, and use reliable sources. Those who are unable to function productively in that context may be banned from such editing.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 18:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Dmcdevit· t 08:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Neutrality ^talk 06:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Charles Matthews 08:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC) reply
7. ➥the Epopt 22:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 21:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
9. James F. (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Edit-warring

7) Habitual edit-warring is unacceptable. Content disputes are settled by patient negotiation on talk pages.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 18:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Dmcdevit· t 08:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Neutrality ^talk 06:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Charles Matthews 08:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC) reply
7. ➥the Epopt 22:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 21:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
9. James F. (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discourtesy and personal attacks by KDRGibby

1) KDRGibby has been incivil numerous times, making extensive personal attacks [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KDRGibby/Evidence#KDRGibby_is_uncivil, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KDRGibby/Evidence#Incivility.2C_hostility_and_disrespect_of_editors, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KDRGibby/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_.7BTrulyTory.7D Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KDRGibby/Evidence#KDRGibby_violates_WP:CIVIL, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KDRGibby/Evidence#Personal_attacks_at_Che_Guevara, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KDRGibby/Evidence#Evidence_provided_by_MisterHand and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KDRGibby/Evidence#Evidence_by_William_M._Connolley, see also Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/KDRGibby#Making_incivil_or_personal_attacks.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 18:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Dmcdevit· t 08:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Neutrality ^talk 06:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Charles Matthews 08:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC) reply
7. ➥the Epopt 22:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 21:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
9. James F. (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

KDRGibby's complaints

2) KDRGibby feels that Wikipedia engages in a number of unfair practices which prevent fair expression of the points of view he advances, see User:KDRGibby, also User talk:KDRGibby#List of Wiki Bullies. He comments, "Wikipedia is run and edited by a lot of logically inconsistant stupid %$#@!*".

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 18:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Dmcdevit· t 08:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Neutrality ^talk 06:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Charles Matthews 08:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC) reply
7. ➥the Epopt 22:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 21:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
9. James F. (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

KDRGibby consistently fails to assume good faith

3) KDRGibby sees his experience on Wikipedia as a struggle with a phalanx of hostile editors and administrators, see User:KDRGibby and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby/Evidence#Accusations of vested interests.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 18:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Dmcdevit· t 08:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Neutrality ^talk 06:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Charles Matthews 08:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC) reply
7. ➥the Epopt 22:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 21:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
9. James F. (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Tendentious editing

4) KDRGibby has engaged in aggressive point of view editing with respect to articles such as Communism and Wal-Mart. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 18:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Dmcdevit· t 08:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Neutrality ^talk 06:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Charles Matthews 08:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC) reply
7. ➥the Epopt 22:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 21:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
9. James F. (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Edit warring

5) KDRGibby has a history of edit warring, having been blocked seven times as of 04:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC) for violation of the three-revert rule. (See block log.) Selected diffs: [24], [25], [26], [27].

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 18:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Dmcdevit· t 08:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Neutrality ^talk 06:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Charles Matthews 08:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC) reply
7. ➥the Epopt 22:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 21:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
9. James F. (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

KDRGibby has removed large blocks of information

6) In at least two instances KDRGibby has blanked large sections of a hotly disputed article rather than engaging in reasoned discourse. [28] and [29].

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 18:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Dmcdevit· t 08:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Neutrality ^talk 06:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Charles Matthews 08:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC) reply
7. ➥the Epopt 22:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 21:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
9. James F. (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

KDRGibby has acted immaturely

7) In at least one instance KDRGibby has violated Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point by replacing {{totally disputed}} with {{Fluffy Bunnies}} [30].

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 18:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC), though this finding could be better phrased reply
3. Changed to "immaturely". Dmcdevit· t 08:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Neutrality ^talk 06:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Charles Matthews 08:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC) reply
7. ➥the Epopt 22:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 21:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
9. James F. (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:52, 16 February 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.

KDRGibby banned for personal attacks

1) KDRGibby is banned one year for incivility and personal attacks.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
2. The incivility here is particularly egregious. Dmcdevit· t 08:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Neutrality ^talk 06:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Charles Matthews 08:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Too strong. James F. (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. SimonP 18:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC), seems somewhat harsh. I'm more willing to support #2 and #4, and give him a final chance to reform prior to being banned. reply
2. Agree with SimonP. I believe in final chances, especially ones that don't require us to enforce it. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 22:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 21:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC) I'd rather hand him the rope and let him hang himself if he can't learn and change. reply

KDRGibby placed on personal attack parole

2) KDRGibby is placed indefinitely on personal attack parole. He may be briefly blocked if he makes personal attacks, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 18:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Second choice, see new proposal below. Dmcdevit· t 08:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Neutrality ^talk 06:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Charles Matthews 08:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC) reply
7. ➥the Epopt 22:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 21:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
9. James F. (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

... and prohibited from keeping personal attacks

2.1) KDRGibby is placed indefinitely on personal attack parole. He may be briefly blocked if he makes personal attacks, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. He is also prohibited from keeping personal attacks, such as User talk:KDRGibby#List of Wiki Bullies in his userspace, and may be briefly blocked for violations, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit· t 08:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Second choice (wordy without adding significant information) Fred Bauder 12:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Neutrality ^talk 06:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Charles Matthews 08:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC) reply
5. ➥the Epopt 22:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 21:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC) (second choice; plain 2 works well enough) reply
7. Though a tad unnecessary, I would have thought, as with Sam - it's covered by 2 itself. James F. (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. The differences here are implicit (perhaps more than implicit) in 2. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC) reply

KDRGibby placed on Probation

3) KDRGibby is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. Any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause may ban him from any article or talk page which he disrupts by inappropriate editing. Such bans may include all articles and talk pages which deal with certain areas, such as Communism. KDRGibby must be notified on his talk page of any ban and the ban and the basis for it logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 18:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Dmcdevit· t 08:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Neutrality ^talk 06:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Charles Matthews 08:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC) reply
7. ➥the Epopt 22:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 21:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
9. James F. (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

KDRGibby placed on general probation

4) KDRGibby is placed on general probation. Any three administrators, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, may ban him from Wikipedia if his general pattern of activity is unacceptably disruptive. Such a ban and the basis for it shall logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 18:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Dmcdevit· t 08:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Neutrality ^talk 06:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Charles Matthews 08:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC) reply
7. ➥the Epopt 22:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 21:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
9. James F. (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enforcement by block

1) Should KDRGibby violate any ban he maybe briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses, After 5 blocks the maximum block shall be increased to one year. Blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby#Log of blocks and bans

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 18:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Dmcdevit· t 08:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Neutrality ^talk 06:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Charles Matthews 08:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC) reply
7. ➥the Epopt 22:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 21:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
9. James F. (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators Information

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. Everything now passed, from a quick scan. James F. (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Close. Charles Matthews 23:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Close. Dmcdevit· t 23:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Close. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Close. SimonP 23:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Close Fred Bauder 00:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Close. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC) reply