< Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration | Tang Dynasty Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 13:30, 3 June 2009 editFloNight (talk \| contribs)Administrators20,015 edits →Parties instructed and urged: trim← Previous edit		Revision as of 13:40, 3 June 2009 edit undoFloNight (talk \| contribs)Administrators20,015 edits →Template: ; add two moreNext edit →
Line 193:		Line 193:
	:Abstain:		:Abstain:
	:#		:#

			===Disengaging===
			9) Disengaging from a topic area and walking away due to a dispute can sometimes be the right decision. Unresolved content issues can be handled by other editors and this does not require the original parties to remain engaged with the issues. Conduct issues arising from the dispute may still need to be examined, in general terms related to other conduct, as well as specific conduct in the content dispute.

			:Support:
			:# Proposed to support new Fof and remedies. Alternative suggestions and tweaks are welcome. Need to balance between walking away and not addressing specific concerns when conduct issues are being discussed. ]] 13:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

			:Oppose:
			:#

			:Abstain:
			:#

			===The community has a forward-looking approach to interpersonal disputes===
			10) Misplaced Pages community norms are intended to be forward-looking. Editors are strongly encouraged - and often expected - to set aside past interpersonal disputes or find ways to move beyond them, and to choose their present Misplaced Pages conduct in a way which exemplifies this. Users who fail to do so may themselves give rise to disruption.

			:Support:
			:#Proposed to support new Fof and remedies. Alternative suggestions and tweaks are welcome. ]] 13:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

			:Oppose:
			:#

			:Abstain:
			:#


	===Template===		===Template===
	9) {text of proposed principle}		11) {text of proposed principle}

	:Support:		:Support:

Revision as of 13:40, 3 June 2009

Misplaced Pages Arbitration

About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)

Track related changes
v t e

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 13 active Arbitrators (excluding 2 inactive), so 7 votes are a majority.

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the Clerks' noticeboard. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

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

Purpose of Misplaced Pages

1) The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to create a high-quality free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of cameraderie and mutual respect among editors.

Support:

Comments about the source and background for the various proposed principles, if desired, are on the workshop. I have carefully considered the comments offered on the workshop but concluded that changes to the draft principles I proposed there are not warranted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Wizardman 21:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Kirill 00:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
— Rlevse • Talk • 02:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Roger Davies 08:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Editor behavior and decorum

2) Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook. Unseemly conduct from all sides of a dispute, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and disruptive point-making, is prohibited.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Reliability and verifiability of sources

3) Because Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, the reliability and accuracy of our content is extremely important. Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, a policy, requires that article content that is challenged or is likely to be challenged must be attributed to a published reliable source supporting the information presented.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Non-English-language sources

4) Wherever possible, English-language sources are preferable to sources in other languages so that English-speaking readers can readily verify the content of the article and, if desired, can consult the source for more information. However, sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available. Where editors translate a direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article. There is no requirement that a translation of the source be required in other circumstances, although courtesy and good practice suggest that if a genuine concern arises concerning the content or reliability of the foreign-language source, providing a translation or paraphrase of the relevant portion of its content will help address the concern.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Role of the Arbitration Committee

5) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Communication

6) Editors should use their best efforts to communicate with one another, particular when disputes arise. When an editor's input is consistently unclear or difficult to follow, the merits of his or her position may not be fully understood by those reading the communication. An editor's failure to communicate concerns with sufficient clarity, conciseness and succinctness, or with insufficient attention to detail, or failure to focus on the topic being discussed, can impede both collaborative editing and dispute resolution. Editors should recognise when this is the case and take steps to address the problems, either on their own or, where necessary, by seeking assistance.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Feuds and quarrels

7) Editors who consistently find themselves in disputes with each other whenever they interact on Misplaced Pages, and who are unable to resolve their differences, should seek to minimize the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them. In extreme cases, they may be directed to do so.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Conduct on arbitration pages

8) The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in arbitration as in all other areas of Misplaced Pages.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Disengaging

9) Disengaging from a topic area and walking away due to a dispute can sometimes be the right decision. Unresolved content issues can be handled by other editors and this does not require the original parties to remain engaged with the issues. Conduct issues arising from the dispute may still need to be examined, in general terms related to other conduct, as well as specific conduct in the content dispute.

Support:

Proposed to support new Fof and remedies. Alternative suggestions and tweaks are welcome. Need to balance between walking away and not addressing specific concerns when conduct issues are being discussed. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

The community has a forward-looking approach to interpersonal disputes

10) Misplaced Pages community norms are intended to be forward-looking. Editors are strongly encouraged - and often expected - to set aside past interpersonal disputes or find ways to move beyond them, and to choose their present Misplaced Pages conduct in a way which exemplifies this. Users who fail to do so may themselves give rise to disruption.

Support:

Proposed to support new Fof and remedies. Alternative suggestions and tweaks are welcome. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

11) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) This case originated with a dispute primarily between Tenmei (talk · contribs) and Teeninvestor (talk · contribs) concerning the validity and reliability of sources on Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. Both Tenmei and Teeninvestor are experienced editors who have made substantial content contributions to Misplaced Pages. The evidence in the case has expanded to include other disputes in which Tenmei has been involved.

Support:

Revised from the workshop per comments there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Kirill 00:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
— Rlevse • Talk • 02:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Roger Davies 08:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Wizardman 19:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Tenmei and Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty

2) Tenmei disputed the reliability of certain sources used by Teeninvestor on Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. Although some of the concerns raised by Tenmei may or may not be valid—a content issue we do not address—Tenmei's manner and style of raising them has made it difficult to understand the precise nature of his concerns. For example, several editors understood Tenmei to be objecting to the use of a source primarily because it is available only in Chinese and a translation was not provided, but on the workshop in this case, Tenmei has stated that this was not the substance of his objection. Additionally, Tenmei also once proposed to merge Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty into the unrelated mainspace article Salting the earth, perhaps in a faulty attempt to assert that Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty should be deleted and salted.

Support:

Revised per comments on the workshop. I welcome any alternatives. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Kirill 00:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
— Rlevse • Talk • 02:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Roger Davies 08:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Wizardman 19:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Tenmei and dispute resolution

3) In the course of dispute resolution regarding Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty, Tenmei has engaged in instances of incivility and personal attacks, particularly toward Teeninvestor. More generally, many of Tenmei's talkpage posts and submissions during this arbitration case have been very difficult for other editors to understand, to the point that experienced participants in dispute resolution have had difficulty in following them, despite what we accept as Tenmei's good-faith best efforts to assist us in resolving the case.

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Kirill 00:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
— Rlevse • Talk • 02:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
While noting that the animus between Tenmei and TeenInvestor appears mutual, Roger Davies 08:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Wizardman 19:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Per Roger, there is mutual discord between Tenmei and Teeninvestor. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

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.

Tenmei restricted

1) Tenmei is restricted as follows:

(A) Tenmei is topic-banned from Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty for a period of six months. He is permitted to comment on the talkpage, so long as he does so in a civil fashion.

(B) Tenmei is instructed not to interact with or comment with regard to Teeninvestor on any page of Misplaced Pages (except in the course of legitimate dispute resolution initated by others, if necessary, and in that case subject to remedy 2 below).

Support:

I have deleted one paragraph from the proposal on the workshop based on Tenmei's comments there, but added additional remedies below. Reciprocally, although I do not believe a formal remedy is required (other arbitrators may disagree), I strongly urge that Teeninvestor work to minimize any unnecessary interactions with Tenmei. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Kirill 00:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
— Rlevse • Talk • 02:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
And endorsing NewYorkBrad's remarks about TeenInvestor who, I hope, takes notice. Roger Davies 08:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Wizardman 19:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
This will only be successful if Teeninvestor works to minimize any unnecessary interactions with Tenmei. To avoid a future motion making this a formal remedy, Teeninvestor needs to voluntarily avoid interactions with Tenmei. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Tenmei and dispute resolution

2) Should Tenmei become involved in any further disputes with other editors, whether concerning the content of articles (beyond ordinary day-to-day editing issues) or more formal dispute resolution procedures, he shall seek the assistance of a volunteer mentor or adviser to work with him in maximizing the value of his presentation by assisting him with formulating it in a clear and civil fashion.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Tenmei mentored

2.1) Tenmei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) shall be assigned one or more volunteer mentors, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary.

Support:

I think that Tenmei will benefit from consulting with a volunteer mentor. Note the different heading and new wording somewhat changes the focus of the proposal. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Editors advised

3) Editors who encounter difficulties in communicating with others on-wiki are advised to seek help from others in presenting their thoughts clearly, particularly when disputes arise or when dispute resolution is sought. This particularly applies to editors whose native language may not be English.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Resolution of content dispute

4) Editors not previously involved in Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty and any other articles involved in the original content dispute are invited to give attention to any remaining issues concerning the article, including the reliability of sources used in it. Participation from editors fluent in the Chinese language may be especially helpful.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Continuing jurisdiction

5) The Arbitration Committee retains jurisdiction over the subject-matter of this case, as it does in any case. Should the preceding remedies fail to improve the situation described in this decision, after a reasonable time, an application may be made to reopen the case and impose other remedies as may be necessary.

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Kirill 00:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Roger Davies 08:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Wizardman 19:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Voting for this general remedy, although I would prefer one that specifically instructs all involved parties to read the case, and then addresses the specific issues that need to be evaluated in this situation. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

I don't think we need to mention this in every case. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I've commented on this issue on the proposed decision page in the Mattisse case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Parties instructed and urged

6) The parties are instructed to carefully review the principles and findings contained in this decision. Each of the parties is strongly urged to conform his or her future behavior to the principles set forth in this decision.

Support:

If this passes, then we might want to renumber before the case closes. Second choice. I prefer the alternative with the warning.

Oppose:

Abstain:

Parties are instructed and warned

6.1) The parties are instructed to carefully review the principles and findings contained in this decision. Each of the parties is strongly urged to conform his or her future behavior to the principles set forth in this decision. Each of the parties is warned for engaging in the problematic user conduct described above, and is instructed to avoid any further instances of such conduct.

Support:

Alternative with stronger wording. First choice.

Oppose:

Abstain:

Editors counseled to step away temporarily

7) Editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic are counseled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area. Sometimes, editors in this position may best devote some of their knowledge, interest, and effort to creating or editing other articles that may relate to the same broad subject-matter as the dispute, but are less immediately contentious.

Support:

Need to state this directly to all involved parties. (Again might want to renumber if passes.) FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

6) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should any editor subject to a restriction under this decision violate that restriction, he may be blocked for an appropriate length of time by any uninvolved administrator. All blocks shall be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

2) {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.

Passing

Pri : 1 to 8
FoF : 1 to 3
Rem : 1 to 4
Enf : 1

Not Passing (Insufficient majority in Italics)

Pri : NIL
FoF : NIL
Rem : 5
Enf : NIL

- Mailer Diablo 22:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast,
depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.