This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) at 02:17, 7 January 2007 (→Honey and vinegar: correct typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:17, 7 January 2007 by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) (→Honey and vinegar: correct typo)(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, arbitrators may 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 they so choose. 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, 8 Arbitrators are active and none are recused, so 5 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
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Admin passwords should be kept secure
1) Admins should not share their Misplaced Pages passwords with others. Doing so risks exposing Misplaced Pages to considerable disruption and thus may result in emergency de-sysoping.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Admins should not unblock themselves
2) Administrators who have been blocked for purported violations should not remove the block themselves even if they believe it was clearly improper. See Misplaced Pages:Unblocking#Unblocking.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Disputed unsourced material can and should be removed
3) If (a) material in an article is disputed, and (b) it is also unsourced, then it can and should be removed, and should not be restored without adequate sourcing. See Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence, which states that the burden of evidence is on the users adding or restoring information
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Honey and vinegar
4) Other users may be more sensitive than expected. When such situations are encountered it may be more useful to the project to soothe their feelings, than to make demands. If you make a mistake and an unexpected reaction results, it may be helpful to apologize. If another makes a mistake, forgiveness may reduce the tension.
- Support:
- Fred Bauder 18:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Removed "naval officers and Misplaced Pages administrators"; no need to single out particular groups. Kirill Lokshin 23:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Upset
5) It may be more appropriate sometimes to express hurt feelings or apprehensions at a Misplaced Pages project such as Misplaced Pages:Reach out than to contest issues with other users, complain to other users or on public forums, or insist on enforcement of rules.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
A content dispute escalated
1) The underlying problem has its roots in a series of content disputes in respect of Star Trek subjects (e.g. Starfleet Security (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) , Star_Trek_Expanded_Universe, and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia (2nd nomination). The disputes escalated for various reasons. The fact of Husnock being on active service is cited as a factor.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Husnock made regrettable comments
2) During this dispute, Husnock made comments which are regrettable, at least one of which could justly be interpreted as a credible threat of harm . Morwen clearly felt threatened . After a lengthy and often terse series of exchanges on the admin noticeboard, Husnock made this series of comments which several admins considered to be an acceptance that the comments were inappropriate.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Husnock has added back disputed material without sourcing it
3) In edits such as and , Husnock adds back material which had been removed by other editors as unsourced and/or untrue.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Husnock unblocked himself
4) At 04:56, 18 December 2006, Thebainer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Husnock for one month for disruption. Husnock unblocked himself 6 minutes later, citing pure abuse of admin powers by User:Thebainer. Some of the subsequent discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive160#Husnock questioned the appropriateness and/or length of the block but more of the discussion was critical of the self-unblocking.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Husnock shared his password
5) According to Husnock, he shared his password with 'Dan Rappaport' so that the latter could write a message in support of Husnock.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Husnock claims to have helped Dan Rappaport evade a block
6) Both Husnock and Dan Rappaport have stated that Husnock shared his password so that Rappaport could get around a block on an IP address for their location. However, that block was placed specifically because of personal attacks made by Dan Rappaport.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Husnock is a long-standing, valued contributor
7) Husnock (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Husnock's first edit was in April 2004. In the two and a half years since, he has made nearly 13,000 edits covering nearly 4,000 articles, of which over 8,000 are in mainspace, and 1,500 in Image space (). He was sysopped in January 2006. His main areas of contribution have been military ranks and insignia (US, but other nationalities as well, present day and historical) and science-fiction subjects, often also focusing on ranks and insignia. Most of these edits are entirely uncontroversial. In real life Husnock is a Lieutenant in the US Naval Reserve, stated to be currently on active service in the Gulf.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Husnock has misused sockpuppets
8) There is strong evidence that CamelCommodore , 'Dan Rappaport' , and/or unsigned IP edits were sockpuppets of Husnock. As these multiple accounts have acted in support of each other and continued to edit when one or more of them were blocked this would constitute abuse of multiple accounts.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Husnock
9) Husnock (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), now desysopped, Husnock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is a Star Trek buff who occasionally lapses into original research , see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia (2nd nomination), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Starfleet Security, and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Starfleet Judge Advocate General. This tendency was aggravated by his deployment to a war theater away from his sources.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Morwen
10) Morwen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was concerned about the lack of reliable sources for some of the information Husnock was adding and was, at times, sharply critical good faith attempt, expressing her opinion that he should not try to work from memory .
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Frustration
11) Confronted with the unyielding attitude of Morwen regarding sources, Husnock expressed his frustration, adding a parenthetical remark which could, if liberally interpreted, be considered a threat
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Perceived threat
12) Morwen was upset by Husnock's remark. A week later she expressed her apprehensions .
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Postings on public forums
13) Husnock then complained about Morwen's exaggerated response at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard . Morwen had perviously consulted others on IRC and, in response, expressed a less alarmist attitude, but continued to maintain that such a comment was unacceptable . The entire exchange on WP:AN is archived at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive66#Death_Threat_Accusation.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Departure and desyopping
14) Despite mutual apologies at the conclusion of Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive66#Death_Threat_Accusation, Husnock decided to temporarily leave Misplaced Pages, but posted an inflammatory version of his problems on his user page as his parting shot. After refusing to remove it after warning, he was blocked for 30 days. He responded by unblocking himself, aggressively using sockpuppets, and apparently disclosing the password to his administrative account to a third party. As a result he was desyopped on an emergency basis, see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive160#Husnock for an extended discussion.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- 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:
Husnock desysopped
1) Husnock is desyopped without prejudice to his re-applying for adminship via a Request for adminship
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Husnock cautioned regarding improper use of alternate accounts
2) Husnock is cautioned regarding improper use of alternate accounts or inappropriate postings by alter egos.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Husnock cautioned regarding original research and copyright
3) Husnock is cautioned to conscientiously follow Misplaced Pages's Misplaced Pages:No original research and image copyright policies when he returns to regular editing.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Husnock cautioned regarding administrative policies
4) Husnock, who has been desyopped due to unblocking himself and apparently sharing the password to an administrative account with another user, is cautioned to strictly conform to Misplaced Pages policies should he again be entrusted with administrative responsibility.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Husnock encouraged
5) Husnock is encouraged to be more sensitive to the feeling of other users, to consider how his actions affect others and to ameliorate misunderstandings should they occur.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Morwen
6) Morwen is encouraged to be more sensitive to the feelings of other users, to offer helpful assistance to other users who may be in error, and to extend forgiveness to users who may have inadvertently offended or upset her.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Being part of the solution
7) Several of the users who contributed to the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive66#Death_Threat_Accusation added comments which served to inflame the situation rather than resolve it on mutually acceptable terms. They are encouraged to be more insightful and helpful in the future, as is this sockpuppet .
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Discussion by Arbitrators
General
I am a Navy veteran. Outside recreational activities such as editing Misplaced Pages are sometimes vital to serving soldier and sailors. While they should not be given license to violate fundamental Misplaced Pages policies, some extra effort to welcome and accommodate them is appreciated. Fred Bauder 20:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Motion to close
Implementation notes
Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.
Vote
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.