Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Marcosantezana/Proposed decision

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

I see that this injunction has four votes, does this mean that he can be blocked for the time being from editing the pages? Or does this require additional actions of the ArbCom? Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe everything in Arbitration has to be officially closed. After all, if an arbitrator were to vote against the injunction, it would no longer have the necessary 4 votes. This arbitration is relatively minor compared to some of the issues they have to deal with. It is no wonder it has a very low priority. Patience. You will eventually be able to move on your agenda. You can use the time to help get a broader sense of consensus on Natural Selection, as you have started to do on that talk page. Good luck. Ted 05:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Injunctions are something else than the full ruling. So, the question remains. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it does. Just don't expect a timely response. This case does not seem to be a high priority. Cheers Ted 05:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]