all proposed

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 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, zero (0) Arbitrators are recused and three (3) are inactive, so six (6) 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.

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on the discussion page.

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

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.

Given that this is generally a content matter and the dispute seems to have died down in recent weeks, I move to close. Neutrality^talk 22:54, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality^talk 22:54, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Grun t 🇪🇺 22:55, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 00:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
→Raul654 18:52, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC) - although I concur with ambi's assessmnet that this was behavior

Oppose

Per MarkSweep's comments on the talk page. I also dispute that this was a content matter; there was some quite serious behavioural issues here too, which could do with a ruling. Though it shouldn't be our highest priority case - there's two or three which are much more urgent. Ambi 06:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)