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.

Place those on the discussion page.

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

No personal attacks

1) Personal attacks are expressly prohibited because they make Wikipedia a hostile enviroment for editors, and thereby damage Wikipedia both as an encylopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion and encouraging a bunker mentality).

Support:

1. James F. (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC) reply
2. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply
3. →Raul654 21:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Fred Bauder 21:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
5. ➥the Epopt 03:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Neutrality ^talk 13:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

No original research

2) Wikipedia is not the venue for publishing of otherwise unpublished original research; see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, expounded in Wikipedia:No original research.

Support:

1. James F. (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC) reply
2. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply
3. →Raul654 21:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Fred Bauder 21:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
5. ➥the Epopt 03:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Neutrality ^talk 13:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Bad faith editing

3) Users should not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point; that is, users should not act in bad faith. Editing in a manner so as to intentionally provoke other editors is a form of trolling and goes aganist established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia.

Support:

1. James F. (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC) reply
2. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply
3. →Raul654 21:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Fred Bauder 21:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
5. ➥the Epopt 03:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Neutrality ^talk 13:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Compromise

4) The MediaWiki software and Wikipedia policy anticipates that disputes may arise regarding the wording and content of Wikipedia articles. Should disputes arise, editors are expected to engage in research and discussion with other users, and to make reasonable compromises regarding the wording and content of Wikipedia articles.

Support:

1. James F. (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC) reply
2. →Raul654 21:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 21:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
4. ➥the Epopt 03:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Neutrality ^talk 13:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Obsessional point of view

5) In certain cases a Wikipedia editor will tendentiously focus their attention in an obsessive way. Such users may be banned from editing in the affected area. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Efforts to establish a particular point of view sometimes result in violations of Wikipedia:Verifiability as efforts are made to support an eccentric POV.

Support:

1. →Raul654 21:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 21:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 03:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
5. James F. (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Neutrality ^talk 13:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Relevance of references

6) Cited references must relate to particular assertions, merely citing a book within which a person after exhaustive searching might find a source for information is not sufficient. Citations need to to be a specific passage on a specific page of an identified edition.

Support:

1. →Raul654 21:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 21:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 03:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
5. James F. (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Neutrality ^talk 13:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Edit summaries

7) Editors are generally expected to provide appropriate edit summaries for their edits; providing misleading edit summaries, as well as misuse of the minor edit flag, is considered uncivil and bad wikiquette.

Support:

1. →Raul654 21:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 21:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 03:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
5. James F. (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC) Though I would prefer something stronger, perhaps considerably so. reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Neutrality ^talk 13:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Detailed unsourced information inserted by Rktect

1) Rktect ( talk · contribs) has created a large number of articles which contain a great deal of detailed, but unsourced, information regarding ancient weights and measures, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rktect/Evidence#Consensus_as_to_unsuitability_for_Wikipedia.2C_based_on_VfD. Many of these have been deleted.

Support:

1. →Raul654 21:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 21:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 03:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
5. James F. (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Neutrality ^talk 13:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Sweeping assertions inserted by Rktect

2) Rktect ( talk · contribs) has sometimes inserted unsourced anachronistic material such as this assertion that the mile "Miles and stadia have been intended to be unit divisions of a degree of the Earth's great circle circumference since they were first defined as standards of measure by the rope stretchers of Mesopotamia and Egypt" [1]. These assertions seem related to the theories of Livio Catullo Stecchini.

Support:

1. →Raul654 21:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 21:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 03:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
4. James F. (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Neutrality ^talk 13:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Use of references by Rktect

3) Rktect ( talk · contribs) often cites a laundry list of general references which have no specific relationship with any particular item of information; see [2] and a user's comment [3].

Support:

1. →Raul654 21:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 21:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 03:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
5. James F. (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Neutrality ^talk 13:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Disruptive edits by Rktect

4) Rktect ( talk · contribs) has reverted reversions of vandalism by editors he was in a dispute with [4], [5], and has admitted that this was in order to prove a point [6].

Support:

1. →Raul654 21:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 21:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 03:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
5. James F. (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Neutrality ^talk 13:46, 22 October 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.

Rktect banned from weights and measures

1) Rktect ( talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely from all articles which relate to weights and measures (metrology).

Support:

1. →Raul654 21:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 21:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 03:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
5. James F. (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Neutrality ^talk 13:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enforcement by banning

1) Should Rktect ( talk · contribs) edit any article which related to weights and measures (metrology) he may be briefly banned, up to one week in the case of repeat offenses.

Support:

1. →Raul654 21:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 21:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
3. ➥the Epopt 03:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
5. James F. (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Neutrality ^talk 13:46, 22 October 2005 (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. I think we have passed enough to dispose of this matter Fred Bauder 22:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
2. Concur with Fred. →Raul654 14:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC) reply
3. As above. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Neutrality ^talk 13:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply