Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ruy Lopez/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop 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 she/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 1 is inactive, so 7 votes are a majority.

For all items

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

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop.

[edit] 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.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:


[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] 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.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

  • I suggest we merge this case with VeryVerily's appeal (e.g, close it and consider the same issues in that case). It appears to overlap in siginificant ways. What do you other arbitrators think? Raul654 01:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

Ruy Lopez (talk · contribs) appears to have left Wikipedia, as shown by a note on his userpage on January 25, 2006. Because he has ceased editing, I move to close, subject to reactivation upon his return. Neutralitytalk 22:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Close. Neutralitytalk 22:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
close ➥the Epopt 22:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose closing. Ruy Lopez has used many sockpuppets, and in this case edited continuously using the sockpuppet "Mr. Know-It-All".[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayjg (talk • contribs)
What do you guys think about my suggestion above? Raul654 01:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to close and merge

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.

I move to close this case and merge it into the VeryVerily appeal. Raul654 18:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

  1. Aye. Raul654 18:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Aye, having been given the rationale. Charles Matthews 11:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Aye ➥the Epopt 22:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Aye. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)