all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, arbitrators may 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 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.

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.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Neutral point of view[edit]

1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a subject. Removal of other points of view is a violation.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 15:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 19:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 21:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 22:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Ban to prevent disruption[edit]

2) Users who disrupt editing of an article or set of articles may be banned from editing the affected articles.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 15:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 19:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 21:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 22:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Onefortyone's editing pattern[edit]

1) Onefortyone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to focus in many edits on reports of Elvis's attraction to males and lack of interest in females [1].

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 15:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 19:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 21:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 22:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Onefortyone's editing pattern[edit]

1.5) Onefortyone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) editing has substantially improved from that in the earlier arbitration cases. A sampling of edits shows reference to reliable sources without overstating of their content. To a greater extent he allows the reader to draw their own conclusions.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 15:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 19:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 21:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 22:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Lochdale's editing pattern[edit]

2) Lochdale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) frequently reverts references to reports regarding Elvis's attraction to males and lack of interest in females [2].

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 15:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 19:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 21:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 22:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Removal of information[edit]

3) Lochdale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has removed large blocks of sourced material from Elvis Presley [3], Talk:Elvis_Presley#Cleanup_of_.22The_Elvis_Cult_and_its_Critics.22

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 15:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 19:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 21:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 22:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Misunderstanding of NPOV[edit]

4) Lochdale shows evidence of misunderstanding of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, removing a sourced alternative point of view with the comments "Removed POV" [4], "Most Presley experts do not agree, again POV" [5], "Removing POV again" [6], "Removed POV" [7], "Removed POV" [8], "Removed selective and POV quotation" [9], and "Removed selective and POV quotes - again." [10].

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 15:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 19:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 21:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 22:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

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.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Lochdale banned from Elvis Presley[edit]

1) Lochdale is banned indefinitely from editing articles which concern Elvis Presley. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Elvis#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 15:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 19:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 21:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 22:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Onefortyone on probation[edit]

2) Onefortyone remains on probation with respect to editing articles which concern celebrities, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone#Onefortyone_placed_on_Probation.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 15:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 19:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 21:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 22:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enforcement by block[edit]

1) Bans imposed by this decision may be enforced by appropriate blocks. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Elvis#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 15:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 19:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 21:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 22:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

General[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

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.

With a majority of 5 in this case, all principles, findings and remedies pass. Thatcher131 03:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote[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.

1. if five votes is a majority, as indicated above, we're done: move to close ➥the Epopt 14:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Close Fred Bauder 16:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Close. Charles Matthews 16:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Close. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Close. - SimonP 17:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]