Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Arminius/Proposed decision

all proposed

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or 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 or against and abstentions 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:

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:

Motion to close
Four Aye votes needed to close case

Given Neutrality's comments, I am willing to end arbitration at this point. Unless there is evidence which I have not seen, I believe the facts of this case would not have convinced me to impose anything more than a stern censure, and then requiring Arminius to use blocking more responsibly, etc. If Arminius is agreeing to this with Neutrality, I think we can consider it done, as long as Arminius realizes that future misconduct would be dealt with far more severely (as a second offense, so to speak). I move to close. Jwrosenzweig 22:54, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Jwrosenzweig 22:54, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 03:44, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 03:46, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt [[TINC| of the Cabal ]] 17:05, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)