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, [N] Arbitrators is/are recused and [N] is/are inactive, so [N] 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:

Temporary injunction

1) JarlaxleArtemis (talk · contribs) is banned from editing any Wikipedia article other than his own user pages and pages relating to this Arbitration until a final decision is made.

Support:

Fred Bauder 21:01, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 21:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
David Gerard 22:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC) I can't believe this has been sitting here this long. My apologies.[reply]
→Raul654 05:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality^talk 01:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Maturity

1) Users who are very young or immature may not be able to function as a Wikipedia editor until they have attained the requisite age and maturity.

Support:

Fred Bauder 20:58, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
It does say "may", not "are", and I agree. Young editors can be able to function as suitable editors (look at our clutch of sysops under the age of 15), but not always, and indeed often not. James F. (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

we are here to judge behavior, not age or maturity ➥the Epopt 21:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A 3 year old could edit Wikipedia provided they did not act like the typical 3 year old. Fred Bauder 01:22, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Strongly, strongly opposed to all forms of ageism. Neutrality^talk 01:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Previous arbitration

1) JarlaxleArtemis (talk · contribs) was the subject of a previous Arbitration. The decision provided that he should read the Wikipedia policies that he was frequently violating Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/JarlaxleArtemis#Requirement_to_read_policies, agree to follow the policies User:JarlaxleArtemis/Arbcom statement. For three months following the decision, rendered March 18, 2005 JarlaxleArtemis was subject to brief bans if he violated those policies, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/JarlaxleArtemis#Bans_for_continued_ignorance_of_policy.

Support:

Fred Bauder 20:12, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 21:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
→Raul654 05:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality^talk 01:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Continued violations

2) It is alleged that JarlaxleArtemis (talk · contribs) has continued to violate the same policies involved in the first Arbitration Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/JarlaxleArtemis_2#Statement_by_Psychonaut

Support:

Fred Bauder 20:12, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 21:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality^talk 01:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Childish behavior

3) JarlaxleArtemis (talk · contribs) has engaged in childish behavior such as this edit to his user-page concerning his high school teacher [1].

Support:

Fred Bauder 20:55, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 21:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
→Raul654 05:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality^talk 01:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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:

JarlaxleArtemis banned

1) JarlaxleArtemis (talk · contribs) is banned for one year from Wikipedia. Upon his return should any three Wikipedia administrators agree, he may be banned for an additional year. This procedure shall be followed for each successive year until he has successfully edited on Wikipedia for one month after his return without being banned.

Support:

Fred Bauder 21:08, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 21:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
→Raul654 05:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality^talk 01:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enforcement by reseting of ban

1) Should JarlaxleArtemis (talk · contribs) or any sockpuppet, attempt to edit Wikipedia while banned, such attempt shall cause the ban to be reset from the date of the attempt to edit.

Support:

Fred Bauder 21:08, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
(deleted the "one year" specification to make it applicable to any ban) ➥the Epopt 21:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
→Raul654 05:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality^talk 01:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Game over Fred Bauder 21:08, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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.

Seeing as how Jarlaxe has already been indefinitely banned as a result of the actions detailed at User:Linuxbeak/Admin stuff/JarlaxleArtemis, I don't see any purpose in continuing this case any further. →Raul654 05:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Fred Bauder 15:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 02:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality^talk 01:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 11:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]