Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Turrican and VeryVerily/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents 1 Proposed temporary orders 2 Proposed principles 3 Proposed findings of fact 4 Proposed decision 4.1 Remedies 4.2 Enforcement 5 Discussion by Arbitrators 5.1 General 5.2 Motion to close

[edit] Proposed temporary orders

1) {text of proposed orders}

Aye:

Nay:

Abstain:

[edit] Proposed principles

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

1) {text of proposed principle}

Aye:

Nay:

Abstain:

[edit] 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:

[edit] Proposed decision

[edit] Remedies

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Aye:

Nay:

Abstain:

[edit] Enforcement

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Aye:

Nay:

Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

[edit] Motion to close

Four Aye votes needed to close case

1. mav 07:01, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Turrican's last edit was on Oct 5th and two other users involved in this case have asked that it be closed).
2. Given Mav's note, aye. Jwrosenzweig 08:29, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. Agree with the above. →Raul654 22:28, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
4. Aye. ➥the Epopt 16:34, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely hilarious. The arbs are advertising their complete failure to have even read what the complaint was. For those just tuning in, Turrican was as I clearly stated in my request auto-reverting my edits from a series of anonymous IPs. Thus Turrican's edit history is completely irrelevant, as he had ceased using that account. This buffoonish incompetence is only funny because in fact Turrican did quit, just much later than the user history indicates. What's not funny is that I was aggrieved by these ArbCom malfeasants for unreverting his stalking reverts. VeryVerily 03:08, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)