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.

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[edit]

Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

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[edit]

Admin passwords should be kept secure

1) Admins should not share their Wikipedia passwords with others. Doing so risks exposing Wikipedia to considerable disruption and thus may result in emergency de-sysoping.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 23:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight 20:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 20:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia:Unblocking#Unblocking.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 23:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight 20:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 20:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence, which states that the burden of evidence is on the users adding or restoring information

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 23:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight 20:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 20:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Removed "naval officers and Wikipedia administrators"; no need to single out particular groups. Kirill Lokshin 23:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 20:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. True, but not sure this is needed here. FloNight 20:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As per FloNight, I don't believe this is necessary. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Not sure that this is needed, but happy for it to pass if others think it so (that's what abstaining is for, after all). James F. (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upset

5) It may be more appropriate sometimes to express hurt feelings or apprehensions at a Wikipedia project such as Wikipedia:Reach out than to contest issues with other users, complain to other users or on public forums, or insist on enforcement of rules.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Wikipedia is not, broadly speaking, a place for general support groups; I don't think that endorsing one—particularly one without a track record of actually being helpful—is appropriate here. Kirill Lokshin 05:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Users primarily need to find support in real life. Users that edit together might establish on site relationships where mutual support is given on talk pages. FloNight 20:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Charles Matthews 20:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

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 Wikipedia: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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 23:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight 00:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 20:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 [1]. Morwen clearly felt threatened [2]. After a lengthy and often terse series of exchanges on the admin noticeboard, Husnock made this series of comments [3] which several admins considered to be an acceptance that the comments were inappropriate.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 23:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight 00:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 20:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Husnock has added back disputed material without sourcing it

3) In edits such as [4] and [5], Husnock adds back material which had been removed by other editors as unsourced and/or untrue.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 23:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight 00:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 20:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive160#Husnock questioned the appropriateness and/or length of the block, but more of the discussion was critical of the self-unblocking.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 23:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight 00:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 20:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 23:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight 00:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 20:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 23:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight 00:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 20:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Husnock is a long-standing, valued contributor

7) Husnock (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'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 ([6]). 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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 23:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight 00:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 20:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Though I must say I'm uncomfortable at the attempt to quantify valued contributors by number of times they press "save". James F. (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Husnock has misused sockpuppets

8) There is strong evidence that CamelCommodore [7], 'Dan Rappaport' [8] [9], 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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 23:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight 00:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 20:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 [10] [11] [12], see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet Security, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet Judge Advocate General. This tendency was aggravated by his deployment to a war theater away from his sources.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 23:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I do not like the last sentence. Is it needed? FloNight 00:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dislike last sentence. James F. (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Charles Matthews 20:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Husnock

9.1) 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 [13] [14] [15], see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet Security, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet Judge Advocate General.

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight 16:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 [16] [17] good faith attempt, expressing her opinion that he should not try to work from memory [18].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 23:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 20:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I do not see Morwen's editing as a significant problem needing any mention. FloNight 00:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Likewise Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not necessary to mention activity if neither to praise nor criticise. James F. (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 [19]

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 23:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. But being 'yielding' about sources doesn't behove us. Charles Matthews 20:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Not in agreement with the description of Morwen's edits. Not an important focus of this case. FloNight 00:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Again. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Again, aye. James F. (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Perceived threat

12) Morwen was upset by Husnock's remark. A week later she expressed her apprehensions [20].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 23:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 20:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Not an important enough aspect of this case to need a Fof. FloNight 00:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Also unnecessary, IMO; Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. And again. James F. (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Postings on public forums

13) Husnock then complained about Morwen's exaggerated response at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard [21]. Morwen had previously consulted others on IRC and, in response, expressed a less alarmist attitude, but continued to maintain that such a comment was unacceptable [22]. The entire exchange on WP:AN is archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive66#Death_Threat_Accusation.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 23:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 20:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Too detailed description of case with too much emphasis on Morwen. --FloNight 00:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Again Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Still. James F. (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Departure and desyopping

14) Despite mutual apologies at the conclusion of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive66#Death Threat Accusation, Husnock decided to temporarily leave Wikipedia, 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 desysopped on an emergency basis, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive160#Husnock for an extended discussion.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 23:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight 00:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 20:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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.

Husnock desysopped

1) Husnock is desysopped without prejudice to his re-applying for adminship via a Request for adminship.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 23:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight 01:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 20:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Husnock cautioned regarding improper use of alternative accounts

2) Husnock is cautioned regarding improper use of alternative accounts or inappropriate postings by alter egos.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 23:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 20:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight 21:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Husnock cautioned regarding original research and copyright

3) Husnock is cautioned to conscientiously follow Wikipedia's Wikipedia:No original research and image copyright policies when he returns to regular editing.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 23:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight 01:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 20:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Husnock cautioned regarding administrative policies

4) Husnock, who has been desysopped due to unblocking himself and apparently sharing the password to an administrative account with another user, is cautioned to strictly conform to Wikipedia policies should he again be entrusted with administrative responsibility.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 23:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight 01:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 20:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 23:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Not needed at least in this format. FloNight 01:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No need to state this IMO Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Matt. James F. (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I would simply encourage Husnock to avoid such a mess in future. Charles Matthews 20:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 23:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I see no problem that needs a remedy. FloNight 01:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As per FloNight Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No way is this called for. Charles Matthews 20:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Certainly not necessary. James F. (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Being part of the solution

7) Several of the users who contributed to the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive66#Death Threat Accusation added comments which served to inflame the situation (such as this sockpuppet [23]) rather than resolve it on mutually acceptable terms. They are encouraged to be more insightful and helpful in the future.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 23:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight 01:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 20:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General

I am a Navy veteran. Outside recreational activities such as editing Wikipedia are sometimes vital to serving soldiers and sailors. While they should not be given license to violate fundamental Wikipedia policies, some extra effort to welcome and accommodate them is appreciated. Fred Bauder 20:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close[edit]

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.

The majority for this case is 5. All proposals with 5 or more support votes pass. These are proposed principles 1-3, proposed findings 1-8 and 14, and proposed remedies 1-4 and 7. The other proposals do not have the required support. Because the desysopping of Husnock was previously implemented and the other remedies are simply cautions, no enforcement is required. Newyorkbrad 20:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC); updated 22:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

  1. All we can do, move to close. Fred Bauder 20:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close. Kirill Lokshin 21:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close this, yes. James F. (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close Charles Matthews 23:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Close FloNight 22:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


More