| Revision as of 14:54, 12 December 2007 editFloNight (talk | contribs)Administrators20,015 edits →TTN: vote← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:30, 12 December 2007 edit undoManiwar (talk | contribs)3,751 edits →Editorial guidelines: not sure if I can vote here, but I amNext edit → | ||
| Line 124: | Line 124: | ||
| :# Actually, they do when common practice differs from the guideline as it does in this case. ] (]) 11:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | :# Actually, they do when common practice differs from the guideline as it does in this case. ] (]) 11:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :# Can not support as written. I think that an user enforcing guidelines in a broad manner needs to educate other users about the reason for their changes. That we have not done a better job of doing this is a large part of the problem, I think. ] (]) 14:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | :# Can not support as written. I think that an user enforcing guidelines in a broad manner needs to educate other users about the reason for their changes. That we have not done a better job of doing this is a large part of the problem, I think. ] (]) 14:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :# Per all Krill, Bauder, FloNight, and Jdforrester. Valid points --] (]) 16:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Abstain: | :Abstain: | ||
Revision as of 16:30, 12 December 2007
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. 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. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
For this case, there are 9 active Arbitrators, so 5 votes are a majority.
Motions and requests by the parties
Place those on /Workshop. Motions which are accepted for consideration and which require a vote will be placed here by the Arbitrators for voting.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.
Template
1) {text of proposed motion}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
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
Decorum
1) Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, and gaming the system—is prohibited. Users should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Editorial process
2) Misplaced Pages works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Editorial process: fait accompli
3) Editors who have been apprised that a particular change is controversial or disputed are expected to engage in discussion to resolve the dispute. It is inappropriate to repeat the change over a wide range of pages in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC) While true, I don't believe this principle is relevant to the case at hand.
- While I understand the point that you are trying to make, I think as written that it is too broad. As written there are many too exceptions to this proposal, such as removing obvious spam, copyright violations, and defamatory material per BLP. Stalling good faith efforts to remove these type of edits happens regularly by users that do not understand our core policies. Taking the time to educate users about the reason for the removal is a Good Thing. Requiring established users to engage in discussion past that is not best use of their time, I think. FloNight (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Abstain:
Role of the Arbitration Committee
4) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC) While true, I don't believe this principle is relevant to the case at hand.
- Abstain:
Editorial guidelines
5) Editors working to implement guidelines with consensus support, such as WP:EPISODE, need not rehash the discussion of the general guideline each time they apply it.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- It's an open question as to whether the current forms of these guidelines actually have consensus support, particularly when the editors actually working on those articles are taken into account. Kirill 22:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Begs the question. James F. (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, they do when common practice differs from the guideline as it does in this case. Fred Bauder (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Can not support as written. I think that an user enforcing guidelines in a broad manner needs to educate other users about the reason for their changes. That we have not done a better job of doing this is a large part of the problem, I think. FloNight (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Per all Krill, Bauder, FloNight, and Jdforrester. Valid points --Maniwar (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Abstain:
Editorial process: guidelines
5.1) Editors working to implement guidelines that have wide consensus support within the community need not rehash the discussion of a general guideline each time they apply it.
- Support:
- Kirill 22:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- James F. (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Emphasis on wide consensus support, which does not seem to apply in this particular case. Fred Bauder (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- As above, I can not support as written. I think that an user enforcing guidelines in a broad manner needs to educate other users about the reason for their changes. That we have not done a better job of doing this is a large part of the problem, I think. FloNight (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Abstain:
Editorial process: consensus can change
6) Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for both individual editors and particularly the community as a whole to change its mind.
- Support:
- Kirill 22:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Adding "particularly" re. the community - people rarely change their minds, IME. James F. (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Practice is policy Fred Bauder (talk) 11:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- True, but we should not mistake the practices of a pocket of users active on a topic for community consensus. Once the issue is brought to the attention of a larger part of the community, a view more consistent with past practices and core policies often emerges. FloNight (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Trivial subjects
6) Articles regarding trivial subjects which Misplaced Pages users have a practice of creating do little harm and are not properly the subject of serious campaigns which would conform them to guidelines appropriate for serious subjects, see List of South Park episodes and note there is an extensive article regarding each episode.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Content decision; it is properly for the community to determine whether these articles are harmful. Kirill 14:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Some what true, but to be a reliable reference tool we need to make sure that our articles follow our core policies. As a general rule, our guidelines are specific application of our core policies related to a specific topic. FloNight (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Abstain:
Proposed findings of fact
Locus of dispute
1) The dispute centers on the existence of articles regarding individual episodes or characters from television series, and is part of a broader disagreement regarding the interpretation of notability guidelines with reference to fictional and popular culture topics.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
TTN
2) TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), while arguably correct in his assertions, has made disputed changes on a massive scale and in an excessively aggressive manner, causing needless escalation of the dispute (, ).
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Whether he was "right" or not is beside the point and beyond the competence of this body. See 2.1 below. Mackensen (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- See 2.1 below. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Abstain:
TTN
2.1) TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made disputed changes on a massive scale and in an excessively aggressive manner, causing needless escalation of the dispute (, ).
- Support:
- Mackensen (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Kirill 04:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I do not dispute TTN's good faith. Neither does this FoF. James F. (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC) After a review of TTN's contributions, I believe this finding, at best, overstates the case. I believe that TTN is making a good-faith effort to implement an editing guideline and is encountering resistance from individual editors who contribute a type of article that policy does not encourage. The massive scale upon which TTN is working reflects the ease with which unreferenced pop culture articles can be created and populated with in-milieu information, and the popularity of this kind of editing.
- It is understandable that a user would assume a guideline based on Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources has the force of policy and is not subject to debate. Fred Bauder (talk) 11:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Per Fred. FloNight (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Abstain:
Misplaced Pages:Television episodes
3) Misplaced Pages:Television episodes is a guideline more honored in the breach than the observance. See List of South Park episodes and note that there is an article for each episode.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
4) {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.
TTN admonished
1) TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished to avoid overly aggressive campaigns to impose changes on articles, even when he considers those changes to be justified by previous consensus.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Parties urged
2) The parties are urged to work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community and the editors committed to working on the articles in question to develop and implement a generally acceptable approach to resolving the underlying content dispute.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Parties urged
2.1) The parties are urged to engage in centralized discussion of underlying editorial guidelines and their proper application rather than adopt a piecemeal approach.
- Support:
- The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, and part of the conversation should concern our actual practices as displayed by List of South Park episodes. Fred Bauder (talk) 11:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Not specific enough. Kirill 22:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Too generic, aye. James F. (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Abstain:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Discussion by Arbitrators
General
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.