Latest revision as of 13:50, 18 February 2023

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 12 active Arbitrators, so 7 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.

Halt to activities

1) For the duration of this case, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction.

Enacted on 02:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Support:

1. Kirill 01:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
2. FloNight (talk) 02:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Support. Added "television series" to prevent this from conceivably being quoted out of context. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
4. FT2  02:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Support adding tags which are a concern on the matter too. A few loopholes (consensus decisions? new topics? contentious processes?) but this will catch the main ones. Favoring a broad interpretation by administrators, geared to the spirit of this, which is to quell the disputed actions whilst the case is in progress.
5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Editorial process

1) Misplaced Pages works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Support:

1. Kirill 20:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
4. FayssalF - 22:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
5. jpgordon 04:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
6. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
7. James F. (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Paul August ☎ 22:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 06:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
10. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Struggle

2) The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia, in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. While disagreements among editors are inevitable, all editors are expected to work calmly and reasonably towards resolving them, to collaborate in good faith, and to compromise where appropriate—even if they believe that their viewpoint is the only correct one.

Support:

1. Kirill 20:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
4. FayssalF - 22:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
5. jpgordon 04:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
6. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
7. James F. (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Paul August ☎ 22:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 06:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
10. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Fait accompli

3) Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits.

Support:

1. Kirill 20:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
2. This approach flies in the face of the consensus approach which is fundamental to a wiki. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Generally sound, though there can be some fine lines to be drawn on occasion when it is time for the principle to be applied. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
4. FayssalF - 22:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
5. jpgordon 04:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
6. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
7. James F. (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Paul August ☎ 22:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 06:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
10. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Decorum

4) 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; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Support:

1. Kirill 20:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
2. We seem to be adding this to every case recently. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
4. FayssalF - 22:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
5. jpgordon 04:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
6. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
7. James F. (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Paul August ☎ 22:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 06:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
10. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Compliance

5) All editors are expected to comply with the rulings of the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

1. Kirill 20:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
4. FayssalF - 22:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
5. jpgordon 04:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
6. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
7. James F. (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Paul August ☎ 22:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 06:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
10. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

6) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) The dispute centers on the existence of articles regarding individual episodes and 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:

1. Kirill 20:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
4. FayssalF - 22:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
5. jpgordon 04:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
6. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
7. James F. (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Paul August ☎ 22:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 06:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
10. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Unclear status

2) The body of precedent and convention regarding the matter under dispute is unclear, with the major current guideline being applied inconsistently, and old historical precedent tending towards a contradictory viewpoint.

Support:

1. Kirill 20:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
4. FayssalF - 22:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
5. jpgordon 04:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
6. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
7. James F. (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Paul August ☎ 22:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 06:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
10. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Poor behavior

3) Editors from all sides of the dispute have at times engaged in inappropriate behavior, including incivility, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, and edit-warring.

Support:

1. Kirill 20:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
4. FayssalF - 22:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
5. jpgordon 04:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
6. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
7. James F. (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Paul August ☎ 22:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 06:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
10. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Non-compliance

4) TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has egregiously failed to comply with the spirit of the Committee's ruling in the Episodes and characters case, choosing instead to engage in continued editorial conflict.

Support:

1. Kirill 20:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Second choice. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. In favour of 4.1. James F. (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC) See below.

Abstain:

1. Prefer 4.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-compliance

4.1) Since the ruling in the original Episodes and characters case, TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has not "worked collaboratively and constructively with the broader community" as he was urged to do.

Support:

1. Proposed as an alternate, slightly toned down version. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
3. I would prefer adding the 'first' to the above link in reference to the prior case. -- FayssalF - 22:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   Added "the original" to refer to the prior case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

4. Second choice. Kirill 02:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
5. jpgordon 04:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
6. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
7. James F. (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Paul August ☎ 22:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 06:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC) I find this remedy one-sided. TTN is outnumbered. That does not mean he is wrong.

Abstain:

Template

5) {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 restricted

1) TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from making any edit to an article related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. He is free to contribute on the talk pages as appropriate. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:

1. Kirill 20:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Second choice. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Second choice. James F. (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Paul August ☎ 22:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC) In favor of 1.1.
2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I am generally in support of this but I think it should have a expiry time limit on it (six months or one year would seem appropriate). Abstaining to see if this gets consensus; if not then I'll come off the fence on the motion as it is. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Prefer 1.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
3. I generally agree with the substance since page moves, redirect, deletion and page moves are usually contentious actions and probably there would need no reason to set an expiry time limit but probably setting it would leave some hope in seeing some reform from the restricted user. Having no chance in editing again the articles would not be helpful for productive talk pages discussions. -- FayssalF - 22:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

TTN restricted

1.1) TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. He is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:

1. Modified from 1 by adding the six-month time limit and by clarifying the TTN remains free to comment on AfDs, RfDs, etc. initiated by other editors, but not to commence them himself (which I believe is consistent with the intent of the original proposal). Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Agree though 6 months would seem short enough for a new wave of television episode series to appear with possibly some subsequent new conflicts and disputes at Misplaced Pages. I prefer 1 year but would not oppose the above. Page moves can still be added to the set of restrictions if you consider that appropriate. -- FayssalF - 22:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   This editor has sometimes participated constructively in discussions in this area, and I am hopeful that after a few months of participating only in discussions initiated by others, he will be more skilled at participating in the consensus decision-making process. Therefore, I prefer a time-limited rather than indefinite restriction at this point. No strong view on whether page-moves should be added. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

4. Second choice. Kirill 02:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
5. jpgordon 04:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
6. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
7. First choice. James F. (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Paul August ☎ 22:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 06:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC) I find this to be one-sided, and a content rather than conduct decision.

Abstain:

Parties instructed and warned

2) The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question. They are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute.

Support:

1. Kirill 20:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Support with the hope against hope that this will lead to a resolution. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Per Newyorkbrad though I would still emphasize on the importance of this remedy. -- FayssalF - 22:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
5. jpgordon 04:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
6. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
7. James F. (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Paul August ☎ 22:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 06:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Ultimatums make poor decisions

Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, for up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Kirill 20:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Though of course I hope this will not be necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
4. FayssalF - 22:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
5. jpgordon 04:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
6. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
7. James F. (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Paul August ☎ 22:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 06:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
10. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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.

Thus far, the following proposals pass:

• All proposed principles;
• Proposed findings 1), 2), 3), 4.1)
• Proposed remedies 1.1), 2)
• Proposed enforcement 1), "Enforcement by block".

I would ask that voting Arbitrators check my notes; there have been instances of "first and second choice" voting, which has recently given rise to confusion. Best to stay on the safe side :) AGK (contact) 23:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

These notes look right to me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

As the clerk of this case, I will close it once four net votes are reached (plus twenty-four hours from that occurance if opposes still exist, ie. 5-1). Cheers, Daniel (talk) 05:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Net four votes to closed reached. However, as there's opposition to closing, I will wait 24 hours from now before closing, pending any further developments (ie. second oppose, no opposes, etc.). Daniel (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Another arbitrator and I wanted to give this one last look. Closing 24 hours from now is fine unless there are further developments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2008 (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.

Support

1. Close. All done. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Fini. --jpgordon 18:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Close. Kirill 18:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Time to close. My clarifications to user:White Cat and user:Ned Scott can be found here and here respectively. -- FayssalF - 03:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
5. Close. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
6. I've reviewed the most recent proposals and remain of the opinion that they are unworkable. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
7. Close. No further proposals to offer, but see my comments from a few days ago on the talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Close. Paul August ☎ 20:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
9. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose close for another day or two. There are comments, such as the ones from Ned Scott as well as others, that I want to make sure we have had a chance to consider. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither White Cat's nor Ned Scott's comments are convincing to me (my response to Ned Scott and White Cat) but I would prefer waiting a day or two as well to see if they have any further comment or clarification before we close this case. -- FayssalF - 00:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)