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 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

Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions

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

Proposed principles

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

1) Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not provides that use of Wikipedia for advocacy is improper.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Obsessive or tendentious editors may be banned

2) Editors who tendentiously edit subjects which they are obsessed with may be banned from editing those articles. In extreme cases they may be banned from the site.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Editing by professionals

3) Users with a professional education or credentials are welcome to edit on Wikipedia. They may do so anonymously and may set forth their education and professional experience and status if they chose without fully disclosing their identity or offering proof. Ordinary editing, discussion of policy or administrative actions do not constitute practice of their profession or call into play the professional responsibility code of their profession from the perspective of Wikipedia.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

No personal attacks

4) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to other users and avoid personal attacks.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Edit warring

5) Edit wars or revert wars are considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Editors are encouraged to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Focus of dispute

1) The focus of this dispute is the edits of James S. to depleted uranium and associated articles.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Tendentious editing

2) James S. has engaged in sustained and aggressive point of view editing to depleted uranium and associated articles.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Personal attacks

3) Opposing editors have made personal attacks and been discourteous to James S..

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Edit warring

4) James S. ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7], etc.) and TDC ([8] [9] [10] [11] [12], etc.) have engaged in edit warring on Depleted uranium and related articles. Others have engaged in edit warring to a lesser degree.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed remedies

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.

James S. banned from depleted uranium

1) James S. is banned indefinitely from depleted uranium and associated articles.

Support:

Fred Bauder 18:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Dmcdevit·t 22:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 22:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 09:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 22:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

...expanded

1.1) James S. is banned indefinitely from depleted uranium, uranium trioxide, and associated articles.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

James S. placed on Probation

2) James S. is placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing. A record of all bans shall be kept at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

James S. placed on general probation

3) James S. is placed on general probation. He may be banned from Wikipedia by any three administrators for good cause. A record of all bans shall be kept at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Opposing editors warned

4) Those opposing editors who have made personal attacks on James S. are reminded of the policies regarding courtesy and personal attacks.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

TDC placed on revert parole

5) TDC is hereby limited to 1 content revert per article per day and must discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page for one year. He may be briefly blocked for up to a week for violations. After 5 such blocks the maximum block time increases to a year.

Support:

I proposed this for Winter Soldier, but it didn't pass because others thought it wasn't a good idea for a specialized interest (and TDC was banned from the affected article). It's even more clear to me now that his edit warring is not of specialized nature. Dmcdevit·t 22:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 22:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 01:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 09:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 22:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should James S. violate any ban, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year. A record of all blocks shall be kept at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Depleted_uranium#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

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.

Everything passes. Johnleemk | Talk 11:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

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.

Everything has passed, and the remedies are sufficient. James F. (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Dmcdevit·t 03:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close Fred Bauder 21:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Charles Matthews 12:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close ➥the Epopt 19:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]