all proposed
After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here.
Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.
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.
For this case, there are 9 participating arbitrators, so 5 votes are a majority.
Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
1) Because Ghirlandajo, a main party to this case, has not edited since December 27, 2006, and because of an ongoing informal mediation attempt that occured prior to Ghirlandajo's absence, this case is temporarily dismissed. If and when Ghirlandajo returns, it would be best for him to resume productive mainspace editing, which it is hoped can take place without a recurrence of the disputes that led to this case. As appropriate, the mediation between Ghirlandajo and Piotrus can be resumed to seek resolution of any live disputes that might remain between them.
Under the circumstances, this arbitration case is dismissed, without prejudice to a request by any party to reopen it in the future if necessary.
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.
1) {text of proposed orders}
1) {text of proposed orders}
1) {text of proposed orders}
1) {text of proposed orders}
1) {text of proposed orders}
1) {text of proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.
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.