Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 10 active Arbitrators, so 6 votes are a majority.

Contents

[edit] 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.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] 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.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Decorum

1) Wikipedia 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:
  1. Kirill 04:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Mackensen (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. FloNight (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Paul August ☎ 15:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Editorial process

2) Wikipedia 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:
  1. Kirill 04:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Mackensen (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. FloNight (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Paul August ☎ 15:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] 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:
  1. Kirill 04:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Mackensen (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. 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.
  2. 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)
  3. Paul August ☎ 16:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Prefer 3.1.
  4. Prefer 3.1. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:
Comment:
  • Also, as worded, this only addresses one side of the problem. The editors who are creating new episode/character articles are just as much a part of the problem. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editorial process: fait accompli

3.1) 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. Paul August ☎ 16:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Reworded in an attempt to better address both sides of the problem, per Steve's comment above. As for Steve's contention of lack of relevancy, I do not know for certain that such tactics are being used here, but they may be, and such tactics need to be strongly discredited. As for Flo's concern, this principle is about the tactic of attempting to circumvent policy or consensus by creating "facts on the ground", as such I don't think any of the things you are worried about are covered, nor depending on the circumstance, does this principle imply that discussion need necessarily go beyond explanation of policies.
  2. Tightened wording. Kirill 21:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Role of the Arbitration Committee

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

Support:
  1. Kirill 04:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Mackensen (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. FloNight (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Paul August ☎ 16:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. I feel necessary to state, in order to explain why we do not cover certain aspects in our decisions. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. 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:

[edit] 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:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. 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)
  2. Begs the question. James F. (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Actually, they do [need to "rehash" the discussion] when common practice differs from the guideline as it does in this case. Fred Bauder (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. 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)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] 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:
  1. Kirill 22:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Emphasis on wide consensus support, which does not seem to apply in this particular case. Fred Bauder (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Mackensen (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Paul August ☎ 16:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. 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)
  2. I am leery of providing a blank slate to not discuss changes when an editor believes they have guideline or policy on their side. The place to discuss a guideline is generally on the guideline's talk page, not the article's, of course, but the applicability of a guideline is most certainly a matter to discuss. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] 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:
  1. Kirill 22:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Adding "particularly" re. the community - people rarely change their minds, IME. James F. (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Practice is policy Fred Bauder (talk) 11:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. 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)
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Mackensen (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Paul August ☎ 16:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Trivial subjects

7) Articles regarding trivial subjects which Wikipedia 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:
  1. Fred Bauder (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Content decision; it is properly for the community to determine whether these articles are harmful. Kirill 14:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. 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)
  3. Paul August ☎ 16:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Per Mackensen.
  4. While I find some things to agree with here I think this is a bit beyond what we should be ruling upon. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. True, but that's more of a content decision. Frankly a little stub-cruft never hurt anyone. Mackensen (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] 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:
  1. Kirill 04:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Mackensen (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. FloNight (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Paul August ☎ 16:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] TTN

2) TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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 ([1], [2]).

Support:
  1. Kirill 04:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. 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)
  2. See 2.1 below. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Paul August ☎ 16:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC) Prefer 2.2
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] TTN

2.1) TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has made disputed changes on a massive scale and in an excessively aggressive manner, causing needless escalation of the dispute ([3], [4]).

Support:
  1. Mackensen (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 04:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. I do not dispute TTN's good faith. Neither does this FoF. James F. (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. 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.
  2. It is understandable that a user would assume a guideline based on Wikipedia:Reliable sources has the force of policy and is not subject to debate. Fred Bauder (talk) 11:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Per Fred. FloNight (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Paul August ☎ 16:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC) Prefer 2.2.
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] TTN

2.2) TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has made disputed changes on a massive scale. ([5], [6]).

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 17:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 21:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Better but still unbalanced. I don't believe it's fair to single out TTN in our decision when the editors creating and retaining the articles appear no more willing to discuss and compromise than TTN.
Abstain:

[edit] Wikipedia:Television episodes

3) Wikipedia: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:
  1. Fred Bauder (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. True enough. Kirill 14:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Mackensen (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Paul August ☎ 16:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC) Prefer 3.1.
  2. Also prefer 3.1. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. In lieu of 3.1. James F. (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Wikipedia:Television episodes

3.1) Like many editing guidelines, Wikipedia:Television episodes is applied inconsistently. For an example, see List of South Park episodes and note that there is an article for each episode. An ideal response to such situations would be broader discussion of the guideline among editors with varying editing interest, with consensus achieved prior to widespread changes.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC) Fundamentally, this is similar to the dust-up over how to deal with highways. We would rather have both sides move towards consensus than create additional "facts on the ground." The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. The last part isn't really a FoF, but this is workable. Kirill 13:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Mackensen (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. There can be good reasons for inconsistencies. Often we make exceptions for a specific article or group of articles that are widely known to be notable and easily verified. That does not mean that our general guidelines on the topic should be discarded if they are backed by our core policies. This nuanced exception can be difficult to explain to editors that are highly invested in less notable entries and want to expand our coverage of their subject of interest. Middle ground can be reached if both sides are willing to listen to each other and seek the input other other users that are less invested in the topic. FloNight (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Paul August ☎ 17:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Fred Bauder (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. James F. (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

4) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] 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.

[edit] TTN admonished

1) TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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:
  1. Kirill 04:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Mackensen (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. I don't think admonishing one side of the dispute is correct as I see both sides as being too heavily invested in the issue to reach a resolution of the dispute. FloNight (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Paul August ☎ 16:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC) Too strong.
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] 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:
  1. Kirill 04:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Mackensen (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Including the broader community implies that the discussion would be centralized at some point so I do not think 2.1 is needed. FloNight (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Paul August ☎ 16:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
# The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] 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:
  1. 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)
  2. Paul August ☎ 16:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Not specific enough. Kirill 22:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Too generic, aye. James F. (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Mackensen (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. not needed. FloNight (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. This is telling them to go out the same door they came in. Fred Bauder (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

[edit] 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.

  • Passing at this time are:
    • Proposed principles 1, 2, 4, 5.1, and 6;
    • Proposed finding 1 and 3.1; and
    • Proposed remedy 2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. Move to close. I think the TTN proposals are unlikely to pass. And I can live without p3.1 fait accompli. Paul August ☎ 16:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC) Strike for now to allow Matthew time to vote. Paul August ☎ 05:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Changing back to close since Matthew has now voted. Paul August ☎ 19:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Close. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Close. P3.1 isn't really applicable without the TTN findings, anyways. Kirill 20:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Close. I'm okay with it as it now stands. FloNight (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Close. James F. (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Oppose for now. I think we need to wait for longer to see if more of the Committee wants to vote on the new proposals that were added to the case. FloNight (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oppose for now since I want to vote & do so after some more consideration. Now voted, but clearly some proposals need a few more votes in either direction. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)