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

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on.

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

Arbitration rulings

1) Arbitration rulings are binding on editors; violations will be regarded seriously.

Support:

Imported from precedents. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 20:28, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
mav 01:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Fred Bauder 01:29, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
Neutrality^talk 04:12, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 05:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Civility

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave calmly, courteously, and civilly in their dealings with other users. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.

Support:

Imported from precedents. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 20:28, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
mav 01:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Fred Bauder 01:29, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
Neutrality^talk 04:12, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 05:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Revert wars considered harmful

3) Revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Users are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration.

Support:

Imported from precedents. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 20:28, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
mav 01:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Fred Bauder 01:29, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
Neutrality^talk 04:12, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 05:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Continued revert warring

1) Despite a zero-revert restriction on articles related to Ashlee Simpson being placed on Everyking in the previous case against him, he has continued to revert on these articles in direct violation of the restriction.

Support:

Grun t 🇪🇺 20:32, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
mav 01:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Fred Bauder 01:29, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
Neutrality^talk 04:12, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 05:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Good conduct

2) Outside of articles related to Ashlee Simpson, Everyking's conduct has remained good.

Support:

Grun t 🇪🇺 20:36, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
mav 01:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Fred Bauder 01:29, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
Neutrality^talk 04:12, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 05:31, 3 Apr 2005 (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.

Ban on Ashlee Simpson-related edits

1) For a period of one year, Everyking is prohibited from editing articles relating to Ashlee Simpson. Any article which contains a link to Ashlee Simpson or mentioning Ashlee Simpson, see what links to Ashlee Simpson, is an article "relating to Ashlee Simpson"; therefore falling within the articles covered by this limitation, if Everyking is editing with respect to that portion of an article which is concerned with Ashlee Simpson. Violations of this restriction shall result in blocks of up to 24 hours per violation. Everyking may apply to the Arbitration Committee for this sanction to be lifted in two months.

Support:

Grun t 🇪🇺 20:39, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
mav 01:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Fred Bauder 01:29, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
Neutrality^talk 04:12, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 05:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

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.

Move to close - we've covered everything. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 16:28, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
Neutrality^talk 17:33, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 23:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
mav 02:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)