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, 1 Arbitrator is recused and 5 are inactive, so 5 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[edit]

Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

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[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

No personal attacks[edit]

1) Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Support:

Raul654 20:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 19:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 23:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly Martin (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Revert warring considered harmful[edit]

2) Revert warring is considered harmful - Wikipedia:Revert

Support:

Raul654 20:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 19:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 23:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly Martin (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Assume good faith[edit]

3) Wikipedia:Assume good faith

Support:

Raul654 20:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 19:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 23:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly Martin (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Personal attacks by Silverback[edit]

1) Silverback has repeatedly made personal attacks and other derogatory comments about 172. [1]

Support:

Raul654 20:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 19:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 23:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly Martin (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Edit warring[edit]

2) Silverback has edit warred on numerous articles, including Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, 2003 Invasion of Iraq, where his conduct has been accurately characterized as "abrasive"

Support:

Raul654 20:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 19:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 23:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly Martin (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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.

Personal attack parole[edit]

1) Silverback is placed on standard personal attack parole for six months. If he makes any edits which are judged by any administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time of up to one week.

Support:

Raul654 20:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 19:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 23:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly Martin (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Revert limitation[edit]

2) Silverback is limited to one revert per article, per week. If he should exceed this, he may be blocked for a short time, up to three days.

Support:

Raul654 20:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC) Though a bit stronger than the 1RR, the 1/7thRR is not too strong, I feel.[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 19:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 23:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly Martin (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

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.

Raul654 18:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC) - Everything has passed. Raul654 18:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC) Yes, close.[reply]
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]