Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Proposed decision

Conflicting remedies?[edit]

"On this case, no Arbitrators are recused and 2 are inactive, so 5 votes are a majority."

Does this mean that remedies 5 & 6 relating to revert prohibition/limitation on Pigsonthewing have both passed? They would seem to be incompatible with one another unless I misunderstand something. I think the case is already technically closed, so perhaps I am supposed to ask at RfClarification. -Splash^talk 23:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that both revert bans are to run consecutively. If not, then, yes, it seems that they conflict.--Sean|Bla ck 00:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then we need to know which runs first... -Splash^talk 00:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am by no means an ArbCom expert (in fact, I'd go so far as to say I'm an ArbCom idiot), but I could have swore I read somewhere that each vote against nullifies a vote for. So right now remedy 5 would have only 4 votes (not a majority) if it works as I suggest. But I may be wrong. =) —Locke Cole 00:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well.. WP:AP says majority (even though for every other vote it seems that a vote against cancels a vote for). But it doesn't define what happens when two nearly identical remedies pass as these two seem to have. —Locke Cole 00:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it: Injunctions and close are four net votes. Findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement are simple majority of active arbiters (5 in this case). Handling of overlapping remedies... no idea. --CBD ✉ 00:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]