all proposed

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 5 are inactive, so 4 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.

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) Rainbowwarrior1977 (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing the talk page of any of the other parties in this case whilst it continues.

Support:

1. James F. (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutrality^talk 04:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Fred Bauder 12:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 14:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) All good-faith contributors, even anonymous ones, are welcome to edit and become involved in the community. However, all users are expected not to misrepresent themselves or their edits, especially as they pertain to claiming to have qualifications that one does not have.

Support:

1. Neutrality^talk 04:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Fred Bauder 12:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 14:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) Vandalism of Wikipedia in any form will not be tolerated and will be dealt with severely. "Sneaky" vandalism in particular is regarded as the worst form of vandalism and will by handled with immediate long-term blocks. Administrators are free to block IP addresses and users for vandalism according to their best judgment and the policies outlined in the blocking policy.

Support:

1. Neutrality^talk 04:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Fred Bauder 12:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 14:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) 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").

Name-calling in particular is dealt with severely. False claims aganist another user (such as an untrue claim of legal threats) are considered deception and are also dealt with severely.

Support:

1. Neutrality^talk 04:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC) (Very slight tweak of wording.)[reply]
3. Fred Bauder 12:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 14:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

4) Articles for deletion, speedy deletion tags, and requests for adminship should be used appropriately within set guidelines and community norms. They should not be used for frivolous or pointless disputes, and should not be used as a forum for personal attacks, harassment, and abuse. See Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.

Support:

1. Neutrality^talk 04:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC) (Added link to WP:POINT.)[reply]
3. Fred Bauder 12:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 14:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

5) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability–and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize–is strictly forbidden.

Support:

1. Neutrality^talk 04:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 12:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 14:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. James F. (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC) (This is slightly wrong terminology; see below.)[reply]

Abstain:

5.1) The use of multiple accounts by one person, though discouraged, is not forbidden. However, when using multiple accounts in an abusive manner, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability–and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize–is strictly forbidden; this is called "sockpuppeting".

Support:

1. James F. (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 12:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 14:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

5) User talk pages should are used for discussions that further Wikipedia as an encyclopedia or a wiki community. Ideally, conversations should be friendly and open. Posting on a user's user talk page aganist his or her express wishes is generally considered improper, and may under certain circumstances be considered harassment.

Support:

1. Neutrality^talk 04:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Fred Bauder 12:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 14:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) Rainbowwarrior1977 (talk · contribs) and associated sockpuppets have engaged in unacceptable editing practices, including misrepresentation of qualifications, personal attacks, abuse of Wikipedia process, and even overt vandalism, as shown by the evidence. All of these activities are unacceptable.

Support:

1. Neutrality^talk 21:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Fred Bauder 12:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 14:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:56, 14 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.

1) The official sanction of the Arbitration Committee is given to the indefinite block of Rainbowwarrior1977 (talk · contribs). The Committee reaffirms that simple vandals and others who engage in overt, easily demonstrable vandalism can be blocked immediately. Neutrality^talk 21:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

1. Neutrality^talk 21:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Fred Bauder 12:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 14:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

User has been blocked indefinitely. I see no reason to disturb this block or to spend a lot of time converting it into a ban. This is a more sophisticated version of a simple vandal, but not worth wasting time on, see [1] Fred Bauder 16:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support. Fred Bauder 16:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support ➥the Epopt 14:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutrality^talk 21:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]