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, no Arbitrators are recused and one is inactive, so 6 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) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons requires that the biographies of living persons should be balanced and verifiable, Users are warned to be on the lookout for Malicious editing and take appropriate remedial measures.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 22:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Dmcdevit·t 07:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 14:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews 08:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) Editors who are intimately involved in an event may tend to edit inappropriately in an attempt to present their particular point of view. This may result in the Wikipedia article on the event becoming part of the event. Such persons may be banned from editing with respect to events they are involved with.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 22:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Dmcdevit·t 07:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 14:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews 08:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Changed first "may" to "may tend to" to clarify meaning. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) Wikipedia is not to be used for advocacy or self-promotion. See Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 07:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 14:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 14:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews 08:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

4) Administrators are not to use their tools in any dispute in which they are directly involved. They should not the administrative rollback button, or any other administrator tools, in content disputes. See Wikipedia:Administrators.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 07:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. ➥the Epopt 14:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Would prefer a wording change to clarify what "direct involvement" is so this principle isn't abused, but generally yes.Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Side issue, not the focus of the dispute Fred Bauder 14:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Side issue, and not something the ArbCom should be ruling about. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Rollback misuse is bad practice, but the ArbCom shouldn't be ruling on it. Charles Matthews 08:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. This is a crushing by elephant matter. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5) A user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, shall be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 01:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC). Note added qualification.[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 19:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews 19:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Dmcdevit·t 19:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) The dispute centers on the editing of WebEx, a communications company founded by Min Zhu whose behavior with respect to his daughter is the center of the controversy. Peripheral articles relate to subjects connected in some way to the controversy. It is alleged that Michael Zeleny, a former associate of Min Zhu, editing as Larvatus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has made inappropriate edits.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Dmcdevit·t 07:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 14:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews 08:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) Larvatus has dismissed concerns regarding his aggressive point of view editing with respect to the controversy, see Talk:Min_Zhu#Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Dmcdevit·t 07:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 14:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews 08:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs) has inappropriately used rollback [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], undeletion [6] [7], and warnings of vandalism [8] [9] related to a content dispute he was involved in.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 07:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. ➥the Epopt 14:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Side issue, not the focus of the dispute Fred Bauder 14:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 08:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Not really relevant. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

4) FCYTravis (talk · contribs) has inappropriately used his administrative rollback button in a content dispute in which he was involved. [10] [11] [12] [13]

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 07:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. ➥the Epopt 14:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Side issue, not the focus of the dispute Fred Bauder 14:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 08:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

5) Henryuzi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was the user who originally added the controversial material to the article [14]

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 01:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 19:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews 19:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Dmcdevit·t 19:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

6) Henryuzi has recently assumed the role taken by Larvatus [15], see Contributions

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 01:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 19:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews 19:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Dmcdevit·t 19:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:16, 26 February 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) Larvatus is banned from editing any article which relates to the controversy involving Min Zhu and his daughter, a partial list of the affected articles is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WebEx_and_Min_Zhu#Affected_articles.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Dmcdevit·t 07:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 14:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews 08:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1.5) Larvatus is banned from editing any article which relate to WebEx or Min Zhu and his daughter, a partial list of the affected articles is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WebEx_and_Min_Zhu#Affected_articles.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 16:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC) (We are getting a few edits which attack WebEx) Fred Bauder 16:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. This could happily be worked into 1. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Dmcdevit·t 19:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 20:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. ➥the Epopt 21:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) Larvatus is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. He may be banned from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing. Bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WebEx_and_Min_Zhu#Documentation_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Dmcdevit·t 07:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 14:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews 08:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) FeloniousMonk is banned from editing any article which relates to the controversy involving Min Zhu and his daughter, a partial list of the affected articles is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WebEx_and_Min_Zhu#Affected_articles.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 07:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. ➥the Epopt 14:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Admins getting drawn too far in should find a substitute. Charles Matthews 08:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per Charles. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Fred Bauder 14:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. I see no reason for a ban here. Forbidding using admin powers, yes, but he shouldn't be doing that anyway. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   But he was using them, and this is arbitration, where we can tell him no to if he has been. Dmcdevit·t 00:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

4) FeloniousMonk is admonished not to use his administrative tools or give warnings in content disputes in which he is involved.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 07:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 14:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 14:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews 08:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Germane. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Not the issue here.[reply]

Abstain:

5) FCYTravis is admonished not to use administrative rollback button in content disputes.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 07:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 14:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 14:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Stay well within good practice. Charles Matthews 08:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. No, not really the issue. Still a good point to make. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per Charles and Sam. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Not the issue here.[reply]

Abstain:

6) Henryuzi is banned from editing any article which relates to the controversy involving Min Zhu and his daughter, a partial list of the affected articles is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WebEx_and_Min_Zhu#Affected_articles.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 01:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 19:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews 19:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Dmcdevit·t 19:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

6.5) Henryuzi is banned from editing any article which relate to WebEx or Min Zhu and his daughter, a partial list of the affected articles is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WebEx_and_Min_Zhu#Affected_articles.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 16:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC) (We are encountering a few edits which attack WebEx) Fred Bauder 16:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Could go into 6. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Dmcdevit·t 19:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 20:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. ➥the Epopt 21:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

7) Henryuzi is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. He may be banned from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing. Bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WebEx_and_Min_Zhu#Documentation_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 01:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 19:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews 19:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Dmcdevit·t 19:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

8) The remedies applied to Henryuzi shall be applied to any additional sockpuppets or meatpuppets which surface.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 01:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 19:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews 19:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Dmcdevit·t 19:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Though this hardly needs saying. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) Should Larvatus violate any ban he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year. Blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WebEx_and_Min_Zhu#Documentation_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Dmcdevit·t 07:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 14:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews 08:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) Should Henryuzi violate any ban he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year. Blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WebEx_and_Min_Zhu#Documentation_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 01:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 19:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews 19:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Dmcdevit·t 19:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

1. Close. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Close. Dmcdevit·t 08:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Close. Charles Matthews 16:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Close after remedies 1.5 and 6.5 pass Fred Bauder 16:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per Fred, though I think the changes are minor enough to work into the already-passed proposals. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. close ➥the Epopt 21:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Close. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]