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, no Arbitrators are recused and 3 are inactive (Fennec, Sannse, David Gerard), 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

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Civility

1) Wikipedia:Civility

Support:

→Raul654 21:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 02:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly Martin (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 16:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

No Personal Attacks

2) Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Support:

→Raul654 21:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 02:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly Martin (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Not exactly what is happening here. Fred Bauder 15:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Modicum of understanding required before criticism

3) Users are expected to have some modicum of understanding of a situation before criticizing the people involved in it.

Support:

→Raul654 21:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 02:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly Martin (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 15:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Misrepresentation of policy

4) Administrators are not to misrepresent their own policy desires and beliefs as actual policies.

Support:

~~→Raul654 21:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]
➥the Epopt 02:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Need to see some specific examples of this Fred Bauder 15:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 20:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly Martin (talk) 12:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Administrative probation

5) Wikipedia administrators' powers may be limited or suspended through the mechanism of Wikipedia:Administrative probation in cases of infractions or disruptions which result from their activities.

Support:

Fred Bauder 16:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

→Raul654 18:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC) - in general, we have abided by a principal that you have to actually abuse your sysop powers in order to be in jeapardy of losing them.[reply]
I'm not ready to begin structuring remedies for administrative review just yet, and anyway this case isn't ripe for it, as there has been no allegation of abuse of authority on the part of Everyking. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe this applies, as this isn't about Everyking's use of admin rights. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Consensus

6) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of policies and guidelines, Wikipedia:Consensus.

Support:

Fred Bauder 16:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the AN is for people to discuss the best way to deal with a particular issue or problem. Everyking's sniping on AN/I is counterproductive in achieving the right administrative decisions. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 20:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Fail to see the relevance to this case. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While this is true of content disputes, this is inapplicable to the current case. →Raul654 20:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Effective communication

7) In order for Wikipedia:Consensus decision making to be productive, a Wikipedia administrator must be able to effectively communicate regarding matters under discussion. This includes familiarity with Wikipedia policies and procedures and the ability to locate information regarding subjects of discussion. In addition an administrator should routinely assume good faith, conduct themselves in a civil way and avoid personal attacks.

Support:

Fred Bauder 16:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I'm not ready to declare that having "poor communication skills" is predicate cause to sanction a sysop, nor am I willing to state that a single incident of failing to assume good faith, failing to be civil, or of making a personal attack is justification for administrative probation or any other remedy that would alter the authority of a sysop to use sysop privileges. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that admins are not 'good wikipedians' but 'users trusted not to abuse admin powers'. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 20:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Failure of an administrator to adequately perform

8) In instances where an administrator performs poorly with respect to some aspect of usual administrative activities, they may be limited in the range of activities that they are permitted to engage in.

Support:

Fred Bauder 16:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Prior arbitrations

1) Everyking (talk · contribs) has been the subject of two prior arbitrations Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 2. Those cases involved editing of Ashlee Simpson and related articles.

Support:

→Raul654 21:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We also dealt with the present issues in a preliminary way and as the result of negotiation an agreement was made. Fred Bauder 12:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Agree with Theresa; no point. James F. (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; I don't see the relevance. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As above. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC) (moved from abstain Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Abstain:

Why do we need this here? The cases aren't related. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
what she said ➥the Epopt 02:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated cases. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Misinterpretation of policy

2) Everyking (talk · contribs) has consistently and repeatedly offered his own misguided interpretations of policy and Wikipedia custom, on the Administator's noticeboard in particular.

Support:

~~→Raul654 21:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]
~~Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]

Oppose:

This isn't the problem. I feel he is entitled to his own opinions on policy and is entitled to discuss his interpretations of policy. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As per Theresa. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He offers his interpretation Fred Bauder 16:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As above. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

true but irrelevant ➥the Epopt 02:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~How is this irrelavant? Often the basis on which he criticizes other administrators is that they are not enforcing policy as he interperets it. →Raul654 18:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]
You need to put some diffs or cite some evidence. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How about "has ... offered his own ... interpretations ... as fact"? James F. (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This would also need some diffs Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Several instances, but not "consistent" and "repeated". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil behavior

3) Everyking's behavior has often been uncivil, including border-line personal attacks [1], [2], [3].

Support:

→Raul654 21:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 02:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly Martin (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 16:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Superlative administrative activities

4) Everyking superlatively performs the technical aspects of the duties of an administrator such as recent changes patrolling.

Support:

→Raul654 21:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 02:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly Martin (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 16:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

~~Constructive dialogue with other administrators is part of the job. Fred Bauder 14:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]
Perhaps change to "non-communicative administratorial activities"? James F. (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Failure to familiarize himself with the facts before commenting

5) Everyking's commentary often reveals he is totally ignorant of the situations he is commenting on.

Support:

→Raul654 21:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 02:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly Martin (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 15:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Baiting of Everyking by other editors

6) Calton (talk · contribs), and Radiant! (talk · contribs) have made unproductive and inflammatory commentary on Everyking's behavior. [4] [5]

Support:

Required for our restriction on enforcement noted below. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 08:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Despite EK sometimes stirring the pot, so to speak, this is true. James F. (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 15:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC) Removed Snowspinner to conform to facts, added 6.1 Fred Bauder 17:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 18:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Everyking invites this by looking for trouble. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Jay →Raul654 00:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Attention from Snowspinner

6.1 Snowspinner (talk · contribs) has paid more attention to Everyking than Everyking is comfortable with [6], [7], [8]

Support:

Fred Bauder 17:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Disruptive and unproductive communication by Everyking

7) Everyking repeatedly engages in critical remarks, which could fairly be characterized as sniping, regarding the actions of other administrators and the Wikipedia arbitrators in Wikipedia forums. Often he has not adequately researched matters before commenting on them. Decisions are frequently characterized as unfair, often of the basis of technical objections which have little basis in Wikipedia policy. See Excellent summary of evidence

Support:

Fred Bauder 15:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Succintly summarizes the situation. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 18:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
→Raul654 20:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 20:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 20:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed remedies

Everyking's interpretation of policy

1) Everyking is prohibited from offering his interpretation of Wikipedia custom or policy

Support:

~~First choice - →Raul654 21:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]
~~First choice - Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]

Oppose:

Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 02:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Too stringent. James F. (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone, even Everyking, is entitled to an opinion. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, unreasonable. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 16:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Changed, based on information from Raul654. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1.2) Everyking is prohibited from offering his interpretation of Wikipedia custom or policy without clearly labeling it as his interpretation and noting that actual custom or policy may vary from his interpretation.

Support:

➥the Epopt 02:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Second choice - →Raul654 03:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]
Possibly, but not absolutely fantastic. James F. (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice - Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I still don't like it. It's wishy washy and unworkable. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 14:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Requiring him to include a disclaimer with every statement he makes about policy he makes is overly burdensome and invites stalking. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As per Theresa. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 16:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Everyking banned from the administrator's noticeboard

2) Except for posting notices of his own actions, Everyking is prohibited for one year from posting to the administrator's noticeboard and subpages thereof.

Support:

→Raul654 21:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably the best way to go. (note that this vote is for a 1 year ban) Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
one year ➥the Epopt 02:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely; limit it to a year as the Epopt suggests - shouldn't pose too much of a problem. James F. (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly Martin (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 14:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC) Added phrase, "Except for posting notices of his own actions"[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC) - added phrase "for one year". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with additions. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Everyking prohibited from commenting on administrators' actions

3) Everyking is prohibited from making comments on non-editorial actions taken by other administrators other than on the administrator's talk page, a Request for comment, or a Request for arbitration.

Support:

→Raul654 21:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 14:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC) added forums where comment was acceptable.[reply]
Good now with Fred's modifications. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No longer too vague. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As with mindspillage, no longer so vague. James F. (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sufficiently clear now. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 18:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Too vague. What if he wants to comment on their own talk page? Or on an rfc? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~➥the Epopt 02:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]

Abstain:

3.1) Everyking is instructed that if he wishes to criticize or question the action of another admin, he should do so on their talk page. If that fails to resolve the problem he must follow the dispute resolution process.

Support:

Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not absolutely sure about it, though. James F. (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 16:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not thrilled with this, but better than saying nothing. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

All this does is shift the criticism from the administrator's noticeboard to the individual users' talk pages (where, with less scrutiny, he is more likely to get away with the nonsense we are trying to prevent) →Raul654 22:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 02:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

The above has the same intent but is clearer, IMO Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Everyking placed on administrative probation

4) Everyking is placed on Wikipedia:Administrative probation for one year. In addition to any specific restrictions enacted as a part of this case he may be restricted from engaging in those activities or editing those project pages which from time to time may be designated by 10 other administrators at project page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3/Probation. A prima facie case showing violation of the restrictions placed on Everyking presented via Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration may result in suspension of administrator status pending a full hearing by the Arbitration Committee, acceptance of the request shall constitute a finding of a prima facie case.

Support:

Fred Bauder 16:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Doesn't seem related to the issues at hand. →Raul654 05:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Everyking has not abused admin powers. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 06:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of abuse of admin powers. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As above. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As above. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 18:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Not sure here, either. James F. (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Everyking is obligated to familiarize himself before commenting

5) Everyking is required to familiarize himself with the particulars of a situation before commenting on it.

Support:

→Raul654 06:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 15:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This would help solve many of the other issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 18:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC) — tho apparently he claims to be familiar and to choose his positions and allies knowingly! I'm not sure which is worse....[reply]
Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 20:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Snowspinner prohibited from enforcing this decision

1) Due to a history of past conflict the remedies in this decision are not to be enforced by Snowspinner.

Support:

→Raul654 21:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 02:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 12:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly Martin (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

I think we moved from /Workshop too soon. We are still in at the stage of making proposals and thinking about how to handle this. Fred Bauder 12:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Old) Motion to close

→Raul654 05:05, August 4, 2005 (UTC) - I move to close. If this agreement falls through, we can reopen.
Agree Fred Bauder 12:33, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 04:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
David Gerard 05:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC) I read over the discussion. Looks good.[reply]

Motion to close

It looks to me like we're done now. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While I would tend to agree, Theresa let him know that he had one week to present his evidence, and that was on November 3. As such, I think we should wait to close it until Nov 10. →Raul654 23:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Close Fred Bauder 14:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This entry will become a vote to close at 2359 UTC, 10 November 2005 ➥the Epopt 01:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this should close just yet. The Snowspinner stuff needs tweaking in its current form. James F. (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As per the Epopt, this is a deferred vote to close effective 2359 UTC, 10 November 2005. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Close. →Raul654 02:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to amend

Motion to modify Everyking 3

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3 is reopened to modified it to include the following additional remedy:

Everyking shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Snowspinner, on any page in Wikipedia. Should he do so, he may be blocked by any administrator (other than Snowspinner) for a short time, up to one week; after the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be one year.

Support:

Kelly Martin (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 17:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping we wouldn't have to do this. Note that I expect here that Snowspinner will make an effort not to make this more difficult by not mentioning or alluding to EK; if this turns out not to be the case I support further modification. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Raul654 17:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC) - I guess it has come to this...[reply]
Unfortunately I think this has become necessary. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes ➥the Epopt 23:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain: