This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jdforrester (talk | contribs) at 12:10, 28 November 2005 (→Proposed principles: For all of these; the sub-headed versions aren't alternatives but merely linked ones. I don't think it necessary to use sub-headings.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 12:10, 28 November 2005 by Jdforrester (talk | contribs) (→Proposed principles: For all of these; the sub-headed versions aren't alternatives but merely linked ones. I don't think it necessary to use sub-headings.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)all proposed
After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop place proposals which are ready for voting here.
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, no Arbitrators are recused and one is inactive, so 6 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 /Workshop.
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:
Proposed final decision
Proposed principles
Don't disrupt Misplaced Pages to prove a point
1) Misplaced Pages:Don't disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point#State your point; don't prove it experimentally provides that parody or a breaching experiment is often a disruption of Misplaced Pages.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Personal attacks
2) Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks provides that "Using someone's political affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said political affilitions are mainstream or extreme" is an unacceptable personal attack.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Autobiography
3) Misplaced Pages:Autobiography, a guideline, discourages persons who have an article about themselves in Misplaced Pages from editing it, suggesting that they provide input on the talk page, but points out the need for citing published sources for information to be acceptable.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Don't bite the newbies
4) Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers, a guideline, admonishes Misplaced Pages users to consider the obvious fact that new users of Misplaced Pages will do things wrong from time to time. For those who either have or might have an article about themselves it is a temptation, especially if plainly wrong, or strongly negative information is included, to become involved in questions regarding their own article. This can open the door to rather immature behavior and loss of dignity. It is a violation of Don't bite the newbies to strongly criticize users who fall into this trap rather than seeing this phenomenon as a newbie mistake.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Controversial experts
5) Knowledgeable users, including those who have been engaged in controversial activities are welcome to edit on Misplaced Pages, provided they cite reliable sources for their contributions and respect Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view and Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not, especially Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original thought, Misplaced Pages is not a propaganda machine and Misplaced Pages is not a battleground.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Harassment of controversial experts
6) The policy expressed in Misplaced Pages:Harassment as applied to controversial experts forbids violation of Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, and Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not#Misplaced Pages is not a battleground by undue focus on Misplaced Pages articles regarding them or organizations affiliated with them, or on their editing activities.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
SNAKE! SNAKE!
7) Misplaced Pages editors who engage in immature behavior by inappropriately focusing their attention on controversial users should be extended some decree of understanding as this is a predictable newbie error.
- Support:
- Fred Bauder 14:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- James F. (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC) (Though I don't get the title - perhaps something else?)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Harassment
8) Misplaced Pages:Harassment prohibits actions which disrupt the editing activity of another user.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Cite sources
9) Users are required to adequately cite the source of any information they place in Misplaced Pages, as per Misplaced Pages:Cite sources. Information which is unsourced may be criticized on that basis, and ultimately be removed. A clear understanding of plagiarism is required.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
External activities of users
10) Use in external activities of such tactics as "links & ties", or guilt by association may be properly reported in a article; however, use of guilt by association by any party on Misplaced Pages is unacceptable. Misplaced Pages requires verification of information by a reliable source, Misplaced Pages:Cite sources, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, and Misplaced Pages:No original research.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Disruption by Nobs01
1) Nobs01 has disrupted Misplaced Pages by posing extensive material that he calls "links & ties", essentially guilt by association to Talk:Chip Berlet, see for example Talk:Chip_Berlet#Intelligence_Identities_Protection_Act and . These postings to the talk page of an article about a Misplaced Pages user constitute harassment.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Personal attack by Cognition
2) Cognition has made a sustained personal attack on cberlet
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Personal attacks by Sam Spade
3) Sam Spade has made personal attacks on Cberlet .
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Harassment of Cberlet
4) Rangerdude has inappropriately quarreled with and been involved in disputes regarding the article concerning a controversial and knowledgeable expert who is also an Misplaced Pages editor, Cberlet, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Cberlet & Willmcw and Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Evidence#Rangerdude.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Over-involvement by Cberlet in Chip Berlet
5) Cberlet, a minor public figure, has sometimes involved himself inappropriately in the content of the article on himself .
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Sam Spade and sources
6) Sam Spade could improve in his use of citations, see Talk:Political_correctness/Archive_5#Dispute_header and Talk:Political_correctness#Plagiarism_allegations
- Support:
- 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:
Removal of personal attacks
1) The "links & ties" material posted by Nobs01 on Talk:Chip Berlet or any other page may be removed by any user as personal attacks.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Reopen Lyndon LaRouch 2
2) Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 is reopened. The remedies applied in Lyndon LaRouch 2 are applied to Cognition (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche_2#Ban_on_editing_LaRouche-related_articles is modified to include an indefinite ban on editing Chip Berlet, Political Research Associates and Dennis King and their talk pages. Cognition may continue to edit under that name but is placed indefinitely on personal attack parole.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Rangerdude placed on probation
3) Rangerdude is placed on Misplaced Pages:Probation for one year. Any administrator may ban Rangerdude from editing any article which he disrupts by aggressive tendentious editing.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Rangerdude admonished
3) Rangerdude is admonished to extend respect and forgiveness to users such as User:Cberlet (Chip Berlet) who share the burden of being notable enough to have articles regarding them be included in Misplaced Pages.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Cberlet cautioned regarding autobiography
4) Cberlet is cautioned to avoid over-involvement in the article on himself.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Nobs01 banned for one month
5) Nobs01 is banned for one month due to disruption of User talk:Cberlet
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Cognition banned for one month
5) Cognition is banned for one month due to an egregious personal attack on User talk:Cberlet
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Sam Spade cautioned to avoid personal attacks
6) Sam Spade is cautioned to avoid personal attacks.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Sam Spade cautioned regarding citation of sources
7) Sam Spade is reminded that information which is included in Misplaced Pages must be properly sourced; that information that is not properly sourced may be criticized on that basis and ultimately removed, and that the source of any information used should be cited to avoid plagiarism.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Discussion by Arbitrators
General
I encountered Chip Berlet briefly in Denver while I was a member of the National Lawyers Guild in the late 1970s. We were friendly but had no deep involvement personally or politically. Fred Bauder 13:19, 27 November 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.