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 they 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 6 are away or inactive (Mindspillage, Filiocht , James F, Sam Korn, Neutrality, and Theresa Knott), 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.

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) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) A user who is not actively editing may be granted a continuance. The case can be activated on their return to active editing.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 14:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 16:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 02:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. See no need for a continuance here. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Moved from Abstain to Oppose. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose finding this in this specific case; not needed. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Raul654 20:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC) - I agree with this principle, but I agree with Jay and Morven that it's not needed here.[reply]

Abstain:

1. We can do this if needed, but I don't see why it is. Dmcdevit·t 02:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2) Edit warring is considered harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. The three-revert rule should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to three reverts, nor does it endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 02:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 18:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. SimonP 13:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews 16:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. ➥the Epopt 02:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Raul654 20:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) Pat8722 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is accused of being a persistent edit warrior.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 14:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Dmcdevit·t 02:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews 16:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. ➥the Epopt 02:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Raul654 20:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) Pat8722 has a history of edit warring, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pat8722/Evidence#Edit_warring. He attempts to justify his edit warring at User_talk:BorgHunter/Archive_4#requesting_explanation_for_unfounded.2C_unexplained_block_.28made_in_violation_of_blocking_policy.29.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 14:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Dmcdevit·t 02:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews 16:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. ➥the Epopt 02:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Raul654 20:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) Following extensive edit warring at Temporomandibular joint disorder Pat8722 has not edited extensively or edit warred for a month. Citing outside conflicts he has undertaken to not edit pending resolution of this matter and requested a continuance, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pat8722/Workshop#Motion_for_.22stay_of_proceedings.22.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 14:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Dmcdevit·t 02:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews 16:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. ➥the Epopt 02:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Raul654 20:28, 20 October 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) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) Pending Pat8722's return to active editing, a continuance is granted in this matter. On return to active editing, he shall notify the Arbitration Committee and this case shall be reactivated.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 14:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. He's managed to post some extremely belligerent comments in the interim [1] [2], but has not informed the Committee of his return to editing. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. he's posting == he doesn't get a continuance ➥the Epopt 02:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose continuance. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Concur with Jay Raul654 20:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Prefer 2, I'm not sure why this is necessary. Dmcdevit·t 02:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 16:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2) Upon returning to active editing, Pat8722 is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned for an appropriate period of time from any page or set of pages for diruptive editing. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pat8722#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Why not decide now? The facts are not going to have changed by the time he gets back, so we are just creating more work for ourselves otherwise. Dmcdevit·t 02:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 16:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 02:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Raul654 20:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I support a continuance. He is not editing and can defend himself after his return. Fred Bauder 18:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 13:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1) Should Pat8722 return to active editing and edit warring without notifying the Arbitration Committee and resolving the matters at issue in this case, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 14:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. If remedy one passes. Dmcdevit·t 02:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews 16:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. ➥the Epopt 02:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Raul654 20:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) Should Pat8722 violate any ban imposed under probation, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 such blocks the maximum block period increases to one year. Blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pat8722#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 02:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 18:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. SimonP 13:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews 16:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. ➥the Epopt 02:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Raul654 20:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

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 02:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Close. Everything that will pass has passed. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Close. Don't like Fred's approach, which possibly says if we don't agree a continuance, when the issue is raised, and we are deadlocked, then continuance it is. Wrong default, IMO. Charles Matthews 13:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose close. No remedy has passed yet; I don't understand what the reasoning is for closing already. Dmcdevit·t 19:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC) Now that the probation remedy passes, I concur with closing. Dmcdevit·t 06:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Close. Raul654 00:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose, just keep it on hold til he comes back. Fred Bauder 22:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]