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, 5 Arbitrators are recused and 1 is inactive, so 4 votes are a majority.
- For all items
Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on.
172 has left Wikipedia
1) 172 has indicated on his user page and on the mailing list that he will not be returning to Wikipedia as an editor.. As this is the case there is little point in continuing this arbitration case. Good housekeeping suggests that it would be imprudent to leave an account with administrator status lying around. A disruptive editor might be tempted to try to guess the password, and without the proper owner about to notice untold damage could be done. So as a precautionary measure the admin privileges should be removed from the account.
- sannse (talk) 14:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) similar suggestions relating to inactive admins have been rejected by the community. However, I do think that 172 needs to make a decision here one way or the other - see below.
- David Gerard 23:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) Sannse's wording below puts the problem a lot better.
- Agree with sannse - →Raul654 19:57, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
1.1) 172 has indicated on his user page and on the mailing list that he will not be returning to Wikipedia as an editor.  However, he has continued to edit  and has withdrawn a request to have his admin abilities removed. These actions suggest that his intention is to remain a participant in Wikipedia.
2) As the complaints centre on the use of admin abilities, if 172 wishes to remain an admin, then the issues resulting in this arbitration must be addressed.
3) 172 is requested to clarify this issue by stating whether he wishes to continue as an admin of Wikipedia. If he does, then this case will be reopened and the evidence on both sides fully assessed. If he does not, then - as he previously requested - his admin abilities will be removed until such a time as he decides to return in that capacity. If 172 does not wish to reply to this question, then it will be assumed that he has chosen to leave the project and does not wish to keep his admin abilities.
Discussion by Arbitrators
See talk page for discussion of what the AC should do when people have said they're leaving - David Gerard 13:57, 15 Apr 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.
- Four votes are a majority, which means all of sannse's proposals have passed. Ambi 05:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- David Gerard 13:57, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- →Raul654 20:12, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Replacing agree to close -- sannse (talk) 21:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)