Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic/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

[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

Ta bu shi da yu, who presented the vast majority of the evidence here, and Netoholic have resolved their differences. As far as I can see, Netoholic has made no contributions in the last month that could be considered arbitable, and it seems to me that this case is now moot. I move to close, leaving the option open of re-opening the case if it flares up again in the future. - Ambi 00:20, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  1. Ambi 00:20, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 19:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 00:04, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Done and done. -- Grunt   ҈  04:40, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)