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 4 are 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.

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

Probation

1) Users who disrupt Wikipedia by tendentious editing and edit warring may be banned from the affected articles. In extreme cases they may be banned from the site.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Assume good faith

2) Users are expected to assume that other editors are acting in good faith unless there are reasonable grounds to believe otherwise. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Focus of dispute

1) Sam Spade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has habitually edited controversial articles Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade/Evidence#Third assertion.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Edit warring and tendentious editing by Sam Spade

2) Sam Spade has engaged in sustained edit warring at a number of articles, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade/Evidence#Sam Spade edit wars at God, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade/Evidence#Sam Spade edit wars at Human, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade/Evidence#Sam Spade edit wars at Socialism.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Sam Spade assumes bad faith

3) Sam Spade has history of making unwarranted assumptions of bad faith against his detractors. He often engages in ad hominem arguments in discussion. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sam Spade and evidence by Bishonen

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.

Sam Spade placed on Probation

1) Sam Spade is placed indefinitely on Probation. He may be banned by any administrator from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing or edit warring. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

Fred Bauder 13:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 14:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 22:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dmcdevit·t 00:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 17:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC), but I do urge admins to be cautious. Sam Spade does make valuable contributions to controversial areas, and many of the debates he gets into cannot be considered tendentious.[reply]
➥the Epopt 03:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Though I echo Simon's concerns.[reply]
Neutrality^talk 17:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Sam Spade cautioned

2) Sam Spade is cautioned to avoid unwarranted assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks and admonished to comment on content, not on the contributor. He is reminded that administrators are empowered to block for such policy violations if they disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should Sam Spade, using any user name or IP, violate any ban, he may be briefly blocked, for up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade#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.

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.

Close. Neutrality^talk 17:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Dmcdevit·t 19:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close Fred Bauder 21:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close. SimonP 18:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 19:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]