After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, arbitrators may 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 they 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, 0 Arbitrators are recused and 5 are inactive or away, so 5 votes are a majority (9 active arbitrators).

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Place those on /Workshop.

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

Neutral point of view

1) Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy is non-negotiable and mandates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion. No perspective is to be presented as truth, and all perspectives are to be attributed to their advocates. Injection of personal viewpoints regarding the subject of an article is inappropriate and does not need to be resolved by debate among the editors of an article. Only a referenced claim from reputable outside sources shall be a cause for inclusion.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. t 04:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 16:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. SimonP 00:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Charles Matthews 21:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Verifiability

2) Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. When disputing the accuracy or neutrality of an article, users are always expected to do so based upon a disagreement as to the significance or meaning of a point of view as defined by its sources, and not its perceived truthfulness or objectivity. See Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. t 04:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 16:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. SimonP 00:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Charles Matthews 21:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Schrodinger82 fundamentally misinterprets NPOV

1) Regardless of his opinions regarding content, Schrodinger82 consistently demonstrates a misunderstanding of the spirit of

• "Let the facts speak for themselves." Keyword, "facts." If you think Moore is misleading, then present facts showing so.
• Most of the criticism on this page should be removed on the basis of a) non-experts talking outside their feild, b) criticism irrelevant to the actual content of the movie, c) criticism that are based on artistic decisions and "what I would do differently if I were him," which are completely subjective and don't belong here.
• But right now, all you're doing is citing a partisan hack who insist that the movie is biased or misleading... Simply pointing out that the criticism is "out there" is not enough.
• Since we cannot determine that BFC is objectively misleading, then it's a matter of opinion.
  • (more)

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 15:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. t 04:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 16:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. SimonP 00:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Charles Matthews 21:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Schrodinger82 style is incompatible with Wikipedia

2) Due to his misconception of Wikipedia's core principles, Schrodinger82's editing of controversial topics or topics of which he holds strong points of view, including Bowling for Columbine, is incompatible with Wikipedia's aims.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 15:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. t 04:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 16:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. SimonP 00:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Charles Matthews 21:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Schrodinger82 banned from Bowling for Columbine

1) Schrodinger82 is banned from Bowling for Columbine and related pages and talk pages for one year. This may be repealed if the Arbitration Committee feels that his editing of other topics demonstrates significantly improved understanding of Wikipedia's core principles.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 15:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. t 04:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 16:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. SimonP 00:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Charles Matthews 21:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enforcement by block

1) Violations of the article ban shall be enforced by brief blocks, up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block period shall increase to one year. Blocks and bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bowling for Columbine#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 15:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. t 04:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 16:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. SimonP 00:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Charles Matthews 21:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

General

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.

• The majority in this case is 5. At this time, all pass 5-0.
  Thatcher131 01:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Now all pass 6-0. FloNight 07:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

1. Close. Everything has passed. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Close Fred Bauder 13:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Close Charles Matthews 15:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Close.
   t 19:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
5. close ➥the Epopt 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]