Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Njyoder/Proposed decision

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 Arbitrator is recused and 2 are inactive, so 5 votes are a majority.

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
 * For all items:

Motions and requests by the parties
Place those on the discussion page.

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.

Personal attack injunction
1) Enacted. If Njyoder makes an edit that any administrator considers to be a personal attack, he may be blocked for up to 24 hours.


 * Support:
 * David Gerard 20:40, 28 May 2005 (UTC) Short leash time.
 * Fred Bauder 22:31, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 02:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 15:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 21:26, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:25, May 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

=Proposed final decision=

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Purpose of Wikipedia
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to collect and organize established knowledge in a usable form.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 01:17, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Role of Wikipedia editors
2) The role of a Wikipedia editor is to find knowledge in published references, including alternative versions, and include them in appropriate Wikipedia articles


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 01:17, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Governance
3) In addition to gathering information and editing articles Wikipedia editors participate in governance of Wikipedia selecting editors to serve as administrators who discharge routine duties involving editing and participation in Wikipedia


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 01:17, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

The pursuit of truth
4) The establishment of truth is not one of the purposes of Wikipedia which merely attributes the knowledge it contains to published sources.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 01:17, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Proper use of talk pages
5) Talk pages on Wikipedia are intended for advancement of the purposes of Wikipedia, not for extended discussions which attempt to arrive at certain knowledge or which attempt to definitively establish the credibility of standard references. Nor are they the place for extended dialog regarding activities of Wikipedia users, editors, or administrators outside the context of Wikipedia.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * I agree with most of this, but there are certian statements in here that make me nervous. Talk pages *are* for scrutinizing references, although we can assume certain ones are credible, which I presume are the 'standard' ones this refers to. Also, talk pages *are* used to discuss certain users activities, such as POV pushing, although 'extended' in this case is subjective. &rarr;Raul654 01:17, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Concur with Raul. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * Ambi 14:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)

Editing of controversial articles
6) Wholesale changes to controversial articles are unproductive as the only likely response is reversion. It is much more desirable to make small changes and couple them with discussion on the talk page of the article.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Only with respect to controversial articles. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * It's OK to be bold, but be prepared to be reverted and if someone does, don't revert them back. &rarr;Raul654 01:17, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Original research
7) Material which originates with a Wikipedia editor, however well crafted, may be removed from an article.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If you don't want someone editing your golden prose, you're in the wrong place. &rarr;Raul654 01:17, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Cite your sources
8) Material which has no source associated with it may be removed from a Wikipedia article pending production of a source.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 01:17, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Disruption
9) It is unacceptable to disrupt either the editing or the governance of Wikipedia by making provocative edits or by persisting either through editing the article or by continued discussion on talk pages in ways which substantially diverge with the purposes of Wikipedia


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 01:17, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

IRC channel #Wikipeda
10) Extensive posting in a public forum of IRC logs from #Wikipedia and other IRC channels is improper,IRC channels. Punishment is rumored to be Crushing by elephant.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:17, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 01:17, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * True, but this is not a joke. Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Wha.. mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Interrogative? &#10149;the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)

Relationship of IRC to Wikipedia for purposes of dispute resolution
10.1) Wikipedia users' activities on IRC channels are not considered relevant in the resolution of disputes between Wikipedia users.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:22, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * For the most part, although snippets (not whole logs) are occasionally considered as evidence. However, it's not the arbitration committee's job to settle IRC disputes. &rarr;Raul654 01:17, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Wikipedia policies
11) Wikipedia editors and administrators are expected to follow present Wikipedia policies.  These policies are used as the basis of dispute resolution.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 17:30, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 01:17, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Change in policy
11.1) It is acceptable to comment on Wikipedia policies and to advocate change in policies. It is not acceptable to repeatedly insist that editors or administrator ignore or overturn established Wikipedia policies on the grounds that they are obviously wrong or irrational. Most Wikipedia policies are a work in progress and can be improved though a process of discussion and consensus. They are nevertheless, for the moment, the policies in place.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 17:30, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 01:17, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * Needs to be more clearly worded. Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Subtle matter
12) As a compendium of all human knowledge, Wikipedia contains subject matter which is the provence of various subcultures (as applied to the instant case, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered (LGBT) communities.)


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:24, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 01:17, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Competency
12.1) Editing specialized subject matter requires familiarity with those areas and the specialized language and information resources which concern them. The assertion that something "makes no sense" or is limited to a subculture (in the instant case " 99% of those hits are from LGBT websites") is not grounds for a subject's exclusion from Wikipedia. The solution is rather to study the matter until is familiar to you before you engage in extensive or aggressive editing or to edit in other areas


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:24, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 01:17, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Disruptive edits with respect to Bishonen's RfA
1) On May 1, 2005 User:Njyoder added a humorous vote and comment to Requests for adminship/Bishonen . This was followed up with additional humorous "Oppose" votes, which related to User:Bishonen/European toilet paper holder, a spoof article. A large number of support votes followed, but meantime Njyoder got crossways with Bishonen on the IRC channel #Wikidedia and followed up with a confirmation of his oppose vote and a denunciation of the role played by IRC participants in supporting a popular IRC participant, describing it as a "circle jerk." This was accompanied by extensive posting of IRC logs on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Bishonen (This posting includes the following statement, "Comments bishonen made in response to my comments on her RFA which further incriminate her -- she seeks validation with the IRC herd),, , see also


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:09, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 01:18, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * (although I don't agree with the characterisation of the vote as humourous) -- Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Posting of IRC logs
1.1) User:Njyoder posted IRC logs on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Bishonen (This posting includes the following statement, "Comments bishonen made in response to my comments on her RFA which further incriminate her -- she seeks validation with the IRC herd), ,


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:09, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 01:19, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Edits to Gender
2) On May 15, 2005 User:Njyoder made an extensive edit to Gender with the following comment, "removed sentences that don't make sense, removed dictionary explanations of etymology (this is not a dictionary), removed POV, made it a stub - [from last edit] gender=sex as per general consensus." This edit removed most material in the article, reducing it to a stub. An extended discussion followed on the talk page, Talk:Gender and a Request for Comment regarding the article was filed  which complained, "Large parts of the article keep getting removed, among other "''removed dictionary explanations of etymology (this is not a dictionary)."


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 17:49, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

History of the article Gender
2.1) Gender was from its creation in 2002 a disambiguation article and continued to be an disambiguation page until its reorganization on October 22, 2004 . Gradually more information was added which addressed the subject matter ; this edit was reverted  on the grounds, "gender != sex;" substituting  which introduced etymological material into the article. The theme that gender is not sex was followed up with this edit  '"gender" is not a biological term." More on the meaning and usage of the term. At this point the article was converted into a disambiguation page by MyRedDice in this and subsequent edits. Content continues to creep in however as in this edit by Jaimenote. But MyRedDice is on the job and reverts maintaining that substantive content should be in the article gender role. But Jaimenote is not done and again attempts to add substantive content. This time Slrubenstein copyedits. A change is made to gender identity rather than gender role as the preferred place for substantive content, then both are linked. A new editor again asserts the identity of "gender" and "sex". Dysprosia reasserts, "gender != sex". On July 27, 2004 substantial substantive content is added by an anonymous editor with the comment, "Added considerable detail and shifted emphasis." This time the article was not reverted to a disambiguation page but reorganized on October 22, 2004 by Sannse who created Gender (disambiguation) and made the "primary meaning" the subject of the article. A clarification. From the reorganization of the article until Njyoder's first edits most substantive edits which added content were by Hyacinth, , and. On May 15, 2005 Njyoder made his first edit, removing the sentence, "Gender is often, and incorrectly, used as a synonym for sex, referring to the physical or essential characteristics commonly used to differentiate male from female." without comment. His next edit removed most substantive content. This edit was reverted a few hours later by AlexR with the comment "Revert from vandalism." An edit war ensued, and  with the article being currently in the form preferred by Njyoder.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 19:57, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * We don't need a blow-by-blow breakdown of the history of the article. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * Per Grunt. Ambi 14:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Not sure what the purpose of this is... mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

References cited for information in the article gender
2.2) No references were cited for any information added or removed from the article Gender.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 20:03, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Fallout of the dispute
2.3) Following User:Njyoder entry into the article extensive discussion began on Talk:Gender with User:Arbor supporting Njyoder and taking the lead in reorganizing the article, see User:Arbor/gender while User:AlexR continues to advance a version based on the pre-Njyoder version at User:AlexR/gender.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 20:25, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Subtlety
2.4) Adequate treatment of gender as the subject of a Wikipedia article as opposed to a simple enumeration of sexual characteristics requires sensitive treatment of a number of subtle considerations, see Preface, Gender.com


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:19, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * This is worded as to be ruling on content, any move of which I will vehemently oppose. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * I don't think this finding is necessarily a bad one, but I do see Grunt's point. Ambi 14:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Njyoder's editing style
2.5) Njyoder seems to lack insight into the complexities involved in crafting an adequate article regarding gender; his editing style could be fairly characterized as ham-handed and.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:19, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * ham-handed-ness is not a crime &#10149;the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * I don't like the way this is worded. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

Regarding third gender
3) With respect to third gender Njyoder has not edited the article but has added a proposal that the article be merged with gender, see Talk:Third gender. His basic argument is that although there are about 20K google hits for "third gender" 99% of those hits are from LGBT websites and the term is not used or comprehensible among the general population.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:58, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Njyoder's style and intensity of argument
3.1) Nyjoder's discussion on Talk:Third gender regarding merger of the article is intense and marked by repetitive plowing of the same ground over and over. The basic theme is that as a subcultural concept the subject does not deserve its own article.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:58, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Dispute regarding Kinsey on Bisexuality
4) Njyoder was involved in a dispute with respect to the article bisexuality regarding the accuracy of reports published by Alfred C. Kinsey, see  and . Yjyoder's removal of Kinsey report material remarking "removed dubious kinsey statistics -- see talk page." An edit war followed, ,  Njyoder then inserted a NPOV notice , with the comment. "NPOV notice -- this is NPOV as a matter of FACT -- do not childishly revert." He then removed the NPOV notice and replaced it with.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 17:17, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Basis of dispute
4.1) Njyoder's edit removing the material derived from Kinsey's work was based on his assertion that it was "junk science" Talk:Bisexuality and cites a number of alleged defects with Kinsey's methodology. Later he makes the statement, "Are you seriously suggesting that it doesn't matter if Wikipedia articles contain accurate information? His information HAS NOT been verified, his methods WERE NOT sound. The information is inaccurate and junk science. If you want unscientific information in a wiki article, take it to a different wiki." . Extensive attempts by other editors to explain that the talk page was not an appropriate venue for extended discussion of the "truth" of a particular reference were ineffective.

Support:
 * Fred Bauder 18:01, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (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:

Njyoder banned from gender and sex related articles
1) User:Njyoder is banned for one year from editing articles related to gender or sexuality.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 18:23, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Njyoder placed on personal attack parole
2) User:Njyoder is placed under a one-year personal attack parole, and specifically warned against ruleslawyering in this area. Should any administrator consider one of his edits a personal attack, he may be blocked for up to 24 hours.


 * Support:
 * Ambi 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 01:43, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 17:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

=Discussion by Arbitrators=

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. Everything that will pass has passed. Let's end this one.
 * Ambi 28 June 2005 17:26 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 June 28, 2005 17:39 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder June 28, 2005 17:58 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 29 June 2005 15:17 (UTC)