Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 2/Proposed decision

all proposed

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or vote to abstain.

• Only items that receive a majority aye vote will be enacted.
• Items that receive a majority nay vote will be formally rejected.
• Items that do not receive a majority aye or nay 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.
• Items that receive a majority abstentions will need to go through an amendment process and be re-voted on once.

Conditional votes for, against, or to abstain should be explained by the Arbitrator in parenthesis after his time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were enacted.

Proposed temporary orders

1) {text of proposed orders}

Aye:

Nay:

Abstain:

Proposed principles

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

1) {text of proposed principle}

Aye:

Nay:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Aye:

Nay:

Abstain:

Proposed decision

Remedies

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Aye:

Nay:

Abstain:

Enforcement

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Aye:

Nay:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

Motion to close

Four Aye votes needed to close case

Move to close, no longer active, can be reopened if he returns. Fred Bauder 12:10, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

1. Fred Bauder 12:10, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
2. Martin 14:57, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) (I didn't agree with opening it in the first place)
3. Given that his other ArbCom case has been decided and he isn't editing much at all now. --mav 20:21, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
4. Delirium 01:35, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC) It seems that imposing a second round of sanctions for actions committed before the first round were imposed isn't useful. Let's see how he reacts to the ones that were imposed, and then if he's still causing problems those can be brought up if/when that happens. --Delirium 01:35, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
5. I support closing now. →Raul654 06:42, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
6. Buh-bye. --the Epopt 14:17, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
7. James F. (talk) 15:28, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)