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, 1 Arbitrators is recused and 3 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

Why have I been included in a Request for Arbitration against KaintheScion and ElKabong?

I am not either. I do not use sockpuppets nor am I a sockpuppet.Enviroknot 03:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

After further reflection and seeing the hateful and wrong comments left by others regarding me, I formally REJECT this kangaroo court. Do what you will. I know you for what you are, hateful, horrid people who have no interest in the truth.Enviroknot 03:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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:

Temporary injunction

1) User:Enviroknot using any account is prohibited from editing any Wikipedia page other then his talk page and the pages of this arbitration until a final decision is made in this case.

Support:

Fred Bauder 20:02, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
→Raul654 06:25, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Ambi 17:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 09:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
mav 04:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Sockpuppets

1) While is is permissible for a person to have several user accounts on Wikipedia, such accounts may be misused in a variety of ways. When there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets, see Wikipedia:Sock puppet

Support:

Fred Bauder 19:48, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Ambi 17:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 23:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
mav 04:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
→Raul654 June 28, 2005 20:43 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 29 June 2005 15:23 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template:Sockpuppet

1.1) While controversial and perhaps exacerbating conflict, it is acceptable to place Template:Sockpuppet on the user page of a suspected account together with links to supporting evidence, see Wikipedia:Sock_puppet#Tagging_identified_sock_puppets.

Support:

Fred Bauder 18:03, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Ambi 17:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 23:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
mav 04:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
→Raul654 June 28, 2005 20:43 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 29 June 2005 15:23 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

No personal attacks

2) Personal attacks and disparaging remarks directed at other users are unacceptable, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Support:

Fred Bauder 19:47, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Ambi 17:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 09:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
mav 04:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
→Raul654 June 28, 2005 20:43 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 29 June 2005 15:23 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Advocacy

3) Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

Support:

Fred Bauder 19:47, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Ambi 17:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 09:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
mav 04:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
→Raul654 June 28, 2005 20:43 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 29 June 2005 15:23 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Editing bans

4) Wikipedia editors may be banned from articles where their point of view advocacy has proven disruptive.

Support:

Fred Bauder 19:47, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Ambi 17:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 09:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
mav 04:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
→Raul654 June 28, 2005 20:43 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 29 June 2005 15:23 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Sockpuppets

1) ElKabong (talk · contribs), Enviroknot (talk · contribs), KaintheScion (talk · contribs), 66.69.141.11 (talk · contribs), 129.7.35.1 (talk · contribs), 38.112.194.37 (talk · contribs), 136.145.54.123 (talk · contribs) and possibly 207.241.238.149 (talk · contribs), and 64.229.186.50 (talk · contribs) are controlled by the same person Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive22#User:KaintheScion_and_User:ElKabong, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KaintheScion_et_al./Evidence#Evidence_of_Sockpuppetry

Support:

Fred Bauder 15:40, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Ambi 17:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 09:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
mav 04:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
→Raul654 June 28, 2005 20:43 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 29 June 2005 15:23 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template:Sockpuppet

2) Template:Sockpuppet has been placed on User:ElKabong, User:Enviroknot and User:KaintheScion. Placement of the template has been vigorously contested by Environot, see page history, Template talk:Sockpuppet, Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Not_deleted/April_2005#Template:Sockpuppet, Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#Vandalizing_my_user_page, Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#My_user_page.2C_once_again_vandalized and Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Sockpuppet_template

Support:

Fred Bauder 17:36, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Ambi 17:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 09:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
mav 04:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
→Raul654 June 28, 2005 20:43 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 29 June 2005 15:23 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Islamofascism and Islamic fascism

3) User:Enviroknot strongly advocated retention and elaboration of the articles Islamofascism and Islamic fascism, since redirected to Neofascism and religion [1] [2], see Talk:Islamofascism.

Support:

Fred Bauder 19:08, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Ambi 17:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 00:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
mav 04:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
→Raul654 June 28, 2005 20:43 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 29 June 2005 15:23 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Attacks on "Islamists"

3) User:Enviroknot has made personal attacks on his Wikipedia opponents who he perceives as "Islamist." [3], [4], [5], [6] and [7]

Support:

Fred Bauder 19:29, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Ambi 17:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 09:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
mav 04:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
→Raul654 June 28, 2005 20:43 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 29 June 2005 15:23 (UTC)

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

One account

1) User:Enviroknot is required to use the account Enviroknot and no other.

Support:

Fred Bauder 19:56, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Ambi 14:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 00:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
mav 04:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
→Raul654 June 28, 2005 20:43 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 29 June 2005 15:23 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Ban on editing

2) User:Enviroknot is banned from editing articles or associated talk pages which relate to Islam for one year, this includes posting on the talk pages of other users material which relates to Islam.

Support:

Fred Bauder 19:56, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC) (2nd choice)

Oppose:

Too light - I see no reason why this user should edit Wikipedia again. Ambi 17:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Agree with Ambi
mav 04:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 29 June 2005 15:23 (UTC)

Abstain:

One year ban

2.1) User:Enviroknot is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year.

Support:

Ambi 17:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Fred Bauder 18:07, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 00:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
mav 04:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
→Raul654 June 28, 2005 20:43 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 29 June 2005 15:23 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Personal attack parole

3) User:Enviroknot is placed on personal attack parole for one year.

Support:

Fred Bauder 19:56, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC) (2nd choice)

Oppose:

Not necessary in the event of a ban. Ambi 17:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Agree with Ambi Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 00:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
mav 04:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 29 June 2005 15:23 (UTC)

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Short bans

1) In the event User:Enviroknot violates the remedies adopted in this matter he may be banned for a short period, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses.

Support:

Fred Bauder 20:07, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Not necessarily in light of a full ban. Ambi 17:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 00:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Since it appears we are banning him from the whole of Wikipedia (and not any particular article) this remedy makes no sense. →Raul654 June 29, 2005 08:32 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 29 June 2005 15:23 (UTC)

Abstain:

Sock puppets

2) Verified use of sockpuppet while a temporary block is in place shall result in a ban from editing Wikipedia for one month.

Support:

Fred Bauder 20:07, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC) (2nd choice)

Oppose:

Not necessary in light of a full ban. Ambi 17:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Same as above - makes no sense in the light that we aren't going to ban him from any particular articles (but rather the whole project). →Raul654 June 29, 2005 08:33 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 29 June 2005 15:23 (UTC)

Abstain:

2.1) Verified use of sockpuppets while the one year ban is in place shall result in the ban being reset, as per standard Arbitration Committee practice.

Support:

Ambi 17:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Fred Bauder 18:08, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 00:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
→Raul654 June 28, 2005 20:44 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 29 June 2005 15:23 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

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.

Looks like everything has passed →Raul654 June 29, 2005 15:27 (UTC)
Close Fred Bauder June 29, 2005 17:48 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 29 June 2005 23:06 (UTC)
One last vote before I disappear off into retirement. Ambi 1 July 2005 07:51 (UTC)