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) Wikipedia includes articles about popular culture.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
2. ➥the Epopt 14:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply
3. James F. (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Raul654 19:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 23:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
8. Neutrality ^talk 21:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources do not specifically address the reliability required with respect to popular culture such as celebrity gossip, but it is unrealistic to expect peer reviewed studies. Therefore, when a substantial body of material is available — e.g., that shown by a google search for 'bisexual "James Dean"' [1] — the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
2. ➥the Epopt 14:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply
3. James F. (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Raul654 19:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Neutrality ^talk 21:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) Users who are otherwise productive editors but who disrupt particular articles due to obsessive concentration of attention on them or insistence on unrealistic standards may be banned from those articles.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
2. ➥the Epopt 14:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply
3. James F. (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Raul654 19:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 23:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
8. Neutrality ^talk 21:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) This matter arises from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone which concerned complaints by Ted Wilkes that Onefortyone had aggressively pushed a personal agenda on Wikipedia focused on assertions that several celebrities, notably Elvis Presley and James Dean, had engaged in homosexual behavior.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
2. ➥the Epopt 14:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply
3. James F. (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Raul654 19:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Neutrality ^talk 21:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

2} Onefortyone's edits were examined and found to be deficient in several respects, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone#Fndings_of_fact. However, sometimes he did cite sources which were sufficient to support addition of information to articles, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone/Workshop#Sources_cited_by_Onefortyone and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone/Workshop#Edits_by_Onefortyone.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
2. ➥the Epopt 14:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply
3. James F. (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Raul654 19:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Neutrality ^talk 21:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) Due to Onefortyone making some good edits but also having serious problems with regard to adequate sourcing of information he was not banned from editing articles which relate to celebrities but placed on Wikipedia:Probation, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone#Onefortyone_placed_on_Probation effective 3 November 2005.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
2. ➥the Epopt 14:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply
3. James F. (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Raul654 19:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Neutrality ^talk 21:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

4) Wikipedia:Probation provides that an administrator may ban a user from editing an article if the terms of the probation are broken. Onefortyone was placed on the following probation:

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
2. ➥the Epopt 14:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply
3. James F. (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Raul654 19:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Neutrality ^talk 21:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

5) Wikipedia:Probation is a relatively new remedy which relies on Wikipedia:Administrators for enforcement. As Ted Wilkes and Wyss were not administrators, they could not enforce it themselves but were required to attract the attention of a Wikipedia administrator with enough interest and energy to look into this matter and consider the sources Onefortyone was using. Attracting the attention of an administrator would probably best be accomplished by posting a notice on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, however Ted Wilkes and Wyss were not specifically informed of this, nor was it suggested at Wikipedia:Probation.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
2. ➥the Epopt 14:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply
3. James F. (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Raul654 19:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Neutrality ^talk 21:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

6) Following the decision attempts to edit by Onefortyone and his mentor FCYTravis were thwarted by reversions and edit warring by Ted Wilkes and Wyss Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone/Workshop#James Dean and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone/Workshop#Nick Adams

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
2. ➥the Epopt 14:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply
3. James F. (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Raul654 19:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Neutrality ^talk 21:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

7) Onefortyone complained about the edit warring and Ted Wilkes and Wyss were warned Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone/Workshop#Complaints and warning. Ted Wilkes responded that he intended to continue with his behavior Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone/Workshop#Ted Wilkes' response.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
2. ➥the Epopt 14:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply
3. James F. (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Raul654 19:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Neutrality ^talk 21:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

8) Ted Wilkes and Wyss have repeatedly insisted on an unrealistic standard with respect to negative information regarding celebrities that is current in popular culture, gossip and rumor Talk:James Dean#Removal of "Rumors" section [2] and Talk:Nick Adams#Rumors, gossip or speculation contravene official Wikipedia policy

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
2. ➥the Epopt 14:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply
3. James F. (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Raul654 19:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Neutrality ^talk 21:52, 23 December 2005 (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) Ted Wilkes and Wyss are banned from any article regarding a celebrity regarding which there are significant rumors of homosexuality or bisexuality as measured by google hits in excess of 10,000 as measured by a search for the celebrity's name and "gay", "bisexual" or "homosexual."

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. too complex and therefore susceptible to gaming ➥the Epopt 14:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply
2. Too... eurgh. James F. (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
3. As above. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Too complex. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
5. Raul654 19:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Numbers are not the answer. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 01:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Neutrality ^talk 21:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

2) Ted Wilkes and Wyss are banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality. The clauses "any edit" and "related to homosexuality or bisexuality" shall be interpreted broadly; this remedy is intended, for example, to prohibit correcting the spelling of "gay".

Support:

1. ➥the Epopt 14:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 14:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC) Second choice reply
3. James F. (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Raul654 19:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Neutrality ^talk 21:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) Ted Wilkes is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. If in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year. Each restriction imposed shall be documented and explained in a section at the bottom of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone. Should any period of one year pass without any such restriction being imposed, Ted Wilkes's probation shall automatically end.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 13:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC) First phrase removed Fred Bauder 03:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 04:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Raul654 19:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Neutrality ^talk 21:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

4) Wyss is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. If in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, she is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia, restrictions may be placed on her editing, up to and including a general ban of one year. Each restriction imposed shall be documented and explained in a section at the bottom of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone. Should any period of one year pass without any such restriction being imposed, Wyss's probation shall automatically end.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 13:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC) First phrase removed Fred Bauder 03:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 04:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Raul654 19:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Neutrality ^talk 21:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) Should Ted Wilkes or Wyss edit any article from which they are banned they may be blocked for a short period, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
2. ➥the Epopt 14:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply
3. James F. (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Raul654 19:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Neutrality ^talk 21:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Although both Ted Wilkes and Wyss have ceased edit warring I believe the principles and remedy proposed are appropriate in order to resolve the issues raised. Onefortyone remains on probation and is expected to use more or less credible sources and is not excused to engage in original research or speculation. Fred Bauder 14:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply

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. Neutrality ^talk 21:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply
2. Raul654 21:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply
3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Close Fred Bauder 00:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply