Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/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 12 active Arbitrators (excluding 1 who is recused), so 7 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] Motion for dismissal

1) After reviewing the evidence, and the proposals on the workshop page, the Arbitration Committee concludes that this is fundamentally a content dispute outside the committee's purview. The case is dismissed.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    This case has been going for two months and has become bogged down. No really solid workable proposals exist for resolving it. The time being spent by the parties on the case would better be spent discussing the details and trying to reach agreement (to the extent that agreement needs to be reached); perhaps the parties can use the evidence and workshop proposals as working drafts to go on. However I am not convinced that arbitration findings would help. There is a danger that the parties will think it more likely they will get their way through arbitration rather than by negotiation between themselves. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC) It's now going somewhere. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Paul August ☎ 22:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 06:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Case moved to 'voting'. Proposed decision has since been posted and is now being voted on and fine tuned.
  2. Case is now progressing. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Per FT2 and SB. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:
:# Although I prefer to see disputes resolved without recourse to arbitration whenever possible, this is the third time that highways-related tensions are before the committee, and there appears to be a consensus among the affected editors that a decision with some teeth in it may unfortunately be necessary this time around. I am abstaining rather than opposing at this moment to watch talkpage discussion for a day or two and see if the suggestion of dismissal sparks any renewed discussion of the parties' resolving their disputes amicably, but unfortunately I don't foresee a likelihood of this occurring. Absent some development of that nature, we should proceed to decide the case, which has already been pending for longer than I would consider appropriate under a reasonable set of standards and goals. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[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] Non-contentious WikiProject decisions and project page edits to resume

1) The project page for WikiProject U.S. Roads will be unprotected to allow normal use, but its scope and approach should not be changed at least until the case is closed. No disputed cases shall be added to or removed from USRD or subprojects, at least until the case is closed.

  • Until the case closes, any uninvolved administrator who is neither a party to the case, nor a member of the WikiProject, may revert any change that modifies these pages or WikiProjects contentiously, and such a change should not be repeated.

Enacted on 02:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Support:
  1. Proposed, based on workshop. (Project page) has multiple broad support and no visible opposition by parties at Workshop, (Disputed cases) is a slight reword of "borderline cases" that seems to better meet the project's needs ('disputed' is better defined than 'borderline'), has support, good reason, and will allow unprotection and non-contentious editing to recommence during the case, and the other item is a simple enforcement measure suited to these and to any other contentious activities. Measures combined will allow the present case to be less disruptive to the WikiProject and reassure that it stays calm pending a final decision. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support based on consensus among the parties; a 'time-out' during the case will be helpful. I see no reason why the case should become a prolonged one. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support per FT2 and Sam Blacketer. I am not sure that an ArbCom motion to do this is really necessary to implement unprotection, but it makes sense for us to enact the other clauses. A notice of this ruling, if adopted, should be placed on the relevant project page to make sure no one violates it inadvertently. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support per above. I also agree that a notice is a good idea. --bainer (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Consensus

1) 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. FloNight (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. Paul August ☎ 18:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  9. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  10. bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  11. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Consensus can change

2) 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. FloNight (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. Paul August ☎ 18:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  9. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  10. bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  11. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Breakdowns in consensus

3) Sometimes efforts at dispute resolution amongst a group of editors can fail, and the process of building consensus can stall. Where editors are unable to resolve disagreements amongst themselves, they should turn to others for help, for example by requesting a third opinion or making a request for comment.

Support:
  1. FloNight (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Or indeed, by simply considering whether it is so important as to merit the distraction.
  7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. Paul August ☎ 18:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  9. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  10. bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  11. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Building consensus: external discussion

4) Whilst editors are free to discuss matters of content and policy outside of Wikipedia, only positions expressed on Wikipedia itself are relevant in evaluating consensus.

Support:
  1. FloNight (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. There may be exceptions in special circumstances (e.g. dealing with certain types of threats), but none that are relevant here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. Paul August ☎ 18:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC) This goes too far. The usual phrasing is that offwiki discussion alone is insufficient to demonstrate consensus.
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Little evidence of specific issues related to off-wiki problems has actually been presented; the main concern being a discussion whether the roads irc channel was open (and admission this was unintentional and is rectified). Not central to the case or really needing a principle, as no FoF really needed to reflect it. Comment on insularity left for editors to consider, under "general comments" though.

[edit] Role of IRC in building consensus

4.1) Discussion in IRC or in other offwiki venues is, by itself, insufficient to demonstrate consensus.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Same support as 4. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. I see 4.1 as an aspect of 4. Perhaps they could be combined with a "For example, ..." at the beginning of current 4.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Second preference; IRC is only one part of off-wiki discussion and it is better to keep the principle as general as possible. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. As per Flo, Brad, a merged form would be an idea. James F. (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Paul August ☎ 15:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC) In favor of 4.
Abstain:
  1. The difference between 4 and this is roughly: "Off-wiki discussion is fine but only on-wiki can demonstrate consensus" vs. "Off-wiki discussion cannot by itself demonstrate consensus". I prefer the former (4) since it positions it better in a context, but this is not inaccurate either so abstaining here too. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Participation in IRC is optional

4.2) Many Wikipedians choose not to use IRC for valid reasons, including the relative difficulty of using IRC from public computers, the impact of time zone differences, low typing speed, and the time-consuming nature of IRC participation. The decision to be involved on-wiki but not using IRC is a valid one other editors must respect.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Was an issue at the start of the case but not now, which is a Good Thing. After the case was opened, I join #wikipedia-en-roads for the first time and sign into the channel off and on. I found the users conduct in the channel to be some of the best that I've seen on IRC. ;-) FloNight♥♥♥ 20:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Agree with the sentiment but too self-evident to need saying. Boils down to "some users use IRC and some don't, respect people's choices not to". Not convinced that IRC was in fact a major issue in this case, see comment at 4. Would tolerate a general comment about off wiki and consensus if others felt it was useful (hence abstain at 4 and UC's other proposal 4.1), but a specific finding about the choice not to participate in irc is not core to this issue. Highly tangential. See comments above and also "notes" below. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Per FT2, this is otiose. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Paul August ☎ 15:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC) In favor of 4.
  4. James F. (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Again, could best be worked as a subaspect of 4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProjects

5) A WikiProject is a collection of pages devoted to the management of a specific topic or family of topics within Wikipedia; and, simultaneously, a group of editors that use said pages to collaborate on encyclopedic work. It may maintain various collaborative processes, keep track of work that needs to be done, and act as a forum where issues of interest to the editors of a subject may be discussed.

Support:
  1. FloNight (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. It's important not to be prescriptive of the way WikiProjects work; they have the right to choose how they organise within the principles of Wikipedia. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC) But not a "layer of authority" - see 6. Roughly speaking, WikiProjects are ways that users may choose to find and work with others more productively and enjoyably in improving articles of interest, and for users who wish to, to self-organize more effectively in their common topic of editing.
  7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. Paul August ☎ 22:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  9. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  10. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Building consensus: WikiProjects

6) WikiProjects have no special status in developing consensus on matters of content or policy. Any Wikipedia editor may participate in developing a consensus on any matter that interests them.

As a purely practical matter, to the degree that a WikiProject's membership correlates with the corpus of editors who have an interest in contributing to a particular subject area, the consensus of the WikiProject's membership may be said to be the consensus at large.

Support:
  1. FloNight (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Third choice. James F. (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Equal preference with 6.2: the second paragraph was meant merely as an observation for practical purposes, and can be dropped with no effect on the expression of principle. --bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Similar concerns to Sam. First paragraph alone is fine, but second paragraph presumes too much and is too problematic. Eg that those interested in contributing to an area, and those with a view on that area in the wider community, coincide enough. No easy way to rectify - do we need this point if it is purely stated "as a practical matter"?
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC) I don't think this is always true.
  3. Paul August ☎ 15:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Second paragraph isn't necessarily true, especially with things like FAC. A Wikiproject is often equivalent to the set of editors interested in some article, but their opinions aren't the be all and end all in things like peer review—a lot of people from some WikiProjects will vote support for anything from their project when it is at FAC, etc irrespective of quality. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. While happy with the first paragraph, I have a problem with the second. It provides no mechanism for measuring the extent to which the membership of a WikiProject is congruent with the corpus of editors interested in a subject. Without any way of determining how representative a WikiProject is, the principle is unhelpful. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Building consensus: WikiProjects

6.1) WikiProjects have no special status in developing consensus on matters of content or policy. Any Wikipedia editor may participate in developing a consensus on any matter that interests them. Their interest or involvement in the WikiProject or other related articles is not, by itself, a factor in their standing in such a discussion.

As a practical matter, to the extent that the regular participants in a busy and reputable WikiProject are users who have expressed a specific interest in improving the content of a given area of the wiki, and have often focussed on the issues in that area and addressed consensus disputes in that area already, a WikiProject's agreed approach is often a good starting point for editorial matters in an area, although as with all editorial views there should be no OWNership suggested, and consensus can change and is far from set in stone.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC) To address concerns at 6. This version tries to address issues in 6 about WikiProject decisions, by formally describing their position and standing, but in a way that does not create the problems at 6. First choice.
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Second choice. James F. (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Second choice. The second half is unhelpfully vague. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Paul August ☎ 15:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Still problematic.
  2. I don't find that this says anything useful. The role of WikiProjects is evolving and varies from one WikiProject to the next. Codifying their role at this early stage would halt that vital evolutionary process. Can a WikiProject speak for Wikipedia at large? I would say that it depends. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. I don't feel this adds anything to the original form. --bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. A wikiproject may have "special status" in developing policy on an area in the sense that a page pertaining to that project may be the locus of discussion on the policy issue. The point is that membership or participation in a particular project may not be made a sine qua non toward having one's input counted or respected. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    Should be clear, but if not, what about adding "[...] Their interest or involvement in the WikiProject or other related articles is not by itself, a factor in their standing in such a discussion." to the first paragraph? Would that fix it? FT2 (Talk | email) 22:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Building consensus: WikiProjects

6.2) WikiProjects have no special status in developing consensus on matters of content or policy. Any Wikipedia editor may participate in developing a consensus on any matter that interests them.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC) To address concerns at 6. This version omits that area entirely. Would prefer some guidance but a decision on this part alone is preferable to no decision at all. Very much second choice to 6.1.
  2. Last choice. Taken alone, this might go to far the other way. We don't want to encourage forum shopping or endless debate so we need to make it clear that it is reasonable to look for good places to discuss a topic. This is often going to involve Wikiprojects if an user wants a decision to stick. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. First choice. James F. (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. First choice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Equal preference with 6: the second paragraph was meant merely as an observation for practical purposes, and can be dropped with no effect on the expression of principle. --bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Per opposition at 6.1
  2. Paul August ☎ 21:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC) While I personally support this view, I have similar reservations as UC. Moreover I think this comes too close to making policy rather than simply describing existing policy.
  3. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Per my comment on 6.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ownership of articles

7) Wikipedia editors, whether acting as an individual or as a corpus, do not have the right to control content that they contribute to Wikipedia articles.

Support:
  1. FloNight (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Would prefer to see "as a corpus" to "acting together". Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Though I'd like to extend this to cover Wikiprojects/groups of editors too - OK if I insert ", whether acting as an individual or as a corpus," after "editors"? James F. (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support with James F.'s addition. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. Paul August ☎ 22:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  9. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  10. bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  11. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Guidelines

8) 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. I didn't propose this but I agree with it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. FloNight (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Though this comes second to "ownership", above. James F. (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Despite a very slight unease where it might get taken. The corollary and safeguard, that valid concerns should have a means to be recognized and incremental improvements made, is missing.
  6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. True provided that respect is given to the possibility that consensus can change or that a challenge may be raised to whether the guideline is indeed applicable in a given situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Paul August ☎ 15:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC) For now. I would prefer that the caveats expressed above by James, FT2 and NYB are explicitly addressed. I may try to do so later.
  2. Per Paul. --bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] WikiProject status is at times useful but not critical

9) Whilst being part of a WikiProject may help in organization and interest, any editor is free to work on any article they feel can usefully be edited, and improve them to a high standard, and this is unaffected by whether or not the article is agreed to be within the scope of a given WikiProject.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Not the same as (6). Rough distinction: 6 covers WikiProjects control of articles and debates; 9 covers that it actually isn't a life or death issue if an article is in a project or not, since anyone (including project members) can work on them to a high standard regardless.
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Weak support. Though I appreciate the semantic difference, I don't necessarily see if it's needed. James F. (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Paul August ☎ 15:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC) I don't believe this is relevant to the matter at hand.
    It is relevant when a part of the dispute is evidenced as being a likely belief or intent by various users that an article has a need to be (or not be) in a specific WikiProject. It doesn't. Key area of dispute. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Neutral point of view

10) Neutral point of view policy anticipates that divergent views may exist on a subject, including how sources may categorize it and others like it. It mandates that for content purposes, different significant views should each be given due weight in an article, rather than edit warring over different perceptions of a sole "correct" view.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. When possible, consensus decisions should encompass all points of view that can be supported by Wikipedia policy. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC) I would prefer that we use the more standard formulations for this.
  2. Paul August ☎ 15:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Per UC.
  3. Per UC. --bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Per UninvitedCompany. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Target audience

11) The target audience of the Wikipedia project and its articles are for the most part, the general and perhaps knowledgable public who are interested in an item, or a topic area. Whilst accurate neutral information is essential, writings on specialist topics for general readership will often require editors to agree on a simplified approach to some of the more technical issues and distinctions in the field, for purposes of accessibility.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Being a general purpose encyclopedia, we some times need to simplify our content in a manner that makes experts cringe. Adding a variety of reference and external links can provide more detail for people interested in a more technical explanation. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Content not conduct
    No. Content is what is in an article - facts, their expression, their balance, tags, categories, wordings, links.... We tend to not decide on those. Content would be "Is X a road or a street". Conduct is how articles are written; how the editorial process should work. Noting a specific approach may be recommended or needed for high quality encyclopedic writing, is not "content". FT2 (Talk | email) 22:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    This finding attempts to address a) the audience for whom the articles are written, b) the style of writing which is most appropriate for the audience thus chosen, c) specific guidance on the compromise between ease of understanding for laypeople and technical accuracy. How is this anything other than a content decision? Conduct is behavior of editors as they deal with each other and with the policy framework. It is clearly and fundamentally outside the committee's remit to determine content of individual articles, to determine the contents and applicability of the style guide or otherwise make style recommendations, to favor one audience over another, or to set criteria for inclusion or deletion. We're not here to suggest compromises or pick winners and losers in content disputes. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    Point of fact, we are a general encyclopedia. Other point of fact, most of the MOS guidelines recognize this: Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible: "Articles in Wikipedia should be accessible to the widest possible audience. For most articles, this means accessible to a general audience. Every reasonable attempt should be made to ensure that material is presented in the most widely accessible manner possible. If an article is written in a highly technical manner, but the material permits a more accessible explanation, then editors are strongly encouraged to rewrite it." Wikipedia:Writing better articles: "Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and worldviews. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject ... Avoid using jargon whenever possible. Consider the reader ... The average reader should not be ... overwhelmingly confused by your article". Pure principle straight out of well-established guidelines and communal norm. Which is well within our remit to draw attention to if relevant, as with all policies and guidelines.
  2. Paul August ☎ 23:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Content decision, per UC. As an aside, I believe that it is a failure of imagination to assume that the encyclopedia can not satisfy the needs of both the general and the more specialist reader.
  3. Per Paul August. Articles or topics may be accessible at multiple levels. A refined version of the principle might be crafted, but I'm not sure it's necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Per Paul August. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. I'd rather not endorse people turning Wikipedia into high-school level textbooks which say that "mass increases with speed" and so forth....Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. This is well beyond our remit. I also agree with Paul. --bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Use of categories and templates

12) Categorizing, templates and tagging for WikiProject purposes on talk pages and other non-article pages is more akin to an expression of editorial interest, and quality and needs of the article, than of definition. WikiProject members can readily decide by consensus or otherwise which articles they choose to be interested in as a group and in each case decide which categories and templates best reflect that article's condition. These matters are always secondary to whether that page is encyclopedic and useful to our general readership, and are editorial aids rather than precise real-world definitions.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. True, relevant, and useful as a statement of principle. As for the "content" concern, the rule is that we should not make statements about what article content should be, or exercise undue influence over such issues. I don't see that as a problem here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Good principle for reuse in other WikiProject-related arbitration cases that might arise. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. The wording here could be clarified to make it plain that this is referring to talk page templates and categories, not article ones. --bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    I have the feeling that categories and tags "for WikiProject purposes" are almost always talk page rather than mainspace. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. Paul August ☎ 21:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Note: I've changed this per Thebainer, FT2 and Blnguyen, so that it explicitly restricts this principle to templates and categories used on talk pages. I can support this with this clarification.
    Slightly redundant (but doesnt hurt), as most WikiProject tags are on talk and project space only. Added "and other non-article pages" since categories and templates may be used in project space for WikiProjects and be a source of contention there too. In fact it's really "anywhere except actual articles", but I can't think of a quick way to say that. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Content not conduct
    As above, what is in a template, and whether one belongs, is content. The intended principle of "what templates are for" and their general uses, is not content. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    Paul August ☎ 14:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Per UC. Categories and templates are part of the content of an article.
    These are talk page templates for record-keeping, not for knowledge consumption....This is no different from some ArbCom sanctioned template put on the userpages of banned users or probationed articles...Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Inconsistencies are a feature of the real world

13) Topics and items within them may have received inconsistent coverage in reference texts, with divergent opinions as to how they should best be categorized and considered. These may lead to genuine uncertainties of categorization on Wikipedia. Such difficulties should not prevent the ongoing development of encyclopedic coverage of these topics. To this end, it may at times be necessary to tolerate a reasonable degree of inconsistency within Wikipedia and between similar articles.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia has historically tolerated each article (and approaches within each article) being evaluated on its own merits, rather than by comparison to another or (in many cases) to a bright-line rule. (Also crossref [T]wo important things about Wikipedia: it is inconsistent, and it tolerates things that it does not condone. (Some argue that these are not defects.) -- WP:POINT)
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Emphasis, as is so often the case on-wiki and in life, on "reasonable." Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. To an extent this doesn't (or shouldn't) need stating but it is true and relevant here. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Content not conduct
    And again. Noting that inconsistency in and between articles is at times expected and must be allowed for, is not "content". It is editorial process and norms, and things editors must bear in mind in their activities. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Paul August ☎ 15:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Per UC. How much or how little inconsistency is appropriate or allowed is a decision about content.
    A statement "how much in a given case" would be content; this is different from a principle that often, a degree of tolerance must be shown by editors to their co-editors and to genuine ambiguities in the subjects in question, as part of the wiki process, and should not be allowed to become a pivot point for unhelpful disruption. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. I don't like these "Oh it's the Kali yuga" type pronouncements. It's true that there are inconsistencies but these types of statements would tend to make people complacent and roll over, unfortunately, rather than being pro-active about doing their bit.Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Excessive focus

14) Undue focus on technical issues related to specialist delineations, at the expense of time and energy that might be better used elsewhere, may become unhelpful if taken too far. Issues of this kind may exist in some topics, that even a reasonable knowledgeable reader will not see as very important to fight over, and where consensus readily allows a workable solution to be agreed and productive debate to move onto the next matter. In such cases, the interests and benefit of the readership should be put ahead of the technical interests of the writer. In particular, excessive focus on bright line rules can cause loss of editorial enthusiasm and involvement due to repeated arguments related to borderline cases, in lieu of facilitating appropriate new material for readers.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC) (11) focusses on the need to write for the audience, including usual simplifications for a non-tehcnical readership; (14) focusses more on the corollary: not allowing certain matters to distract the main thrust of editorship into a repeating tangle of disputes when this is unhelpful.
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support. It does occur to me that overall, there may be more principles and words of principles than absolutely necessary. Like I should talk. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Content not conduct
    A principle that "X must not be allowed to distract from Y" or "X is more (or less, or equally) important to the project than Y" is very rarely if ever "content". Noting that undue focus can lead to project harm is as far from a "content" matter as any. This like the above is a purely conduct item, related to how the editorial process works and attitudes editores may use to guide themselves on better editing generally. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Paul August ☎ 15:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC) While true, I don't think this principle is particularly useful. Obviously "undue" and "excessive" focus can be unhelpful "if taken too far". Such statements are essentially empty. The real question is what constitutes "undue" and "excessive". But that is not ours to decide.
  3. Per Paul August. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Template

15) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Locus of dispute

1) This dispute has evolved from a number of genuine breakdowns in consensus, including a disagreement about terminology relating to former state highways, a debate about listing distances for highway exits, and a dispute about the scope of WikiProject U.S. Roads.

Support:
  1. FloNight (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. Paul August ☎ 01:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. bainer (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  9. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  10. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Good faith

2) In their content contributions, all parties concerned have edited industriously and earnestly, with the intention of improving the encyclopaedia.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Agreed by all, even those in dispute.
  2. Second choice, prefer 2.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Second choice, prefer 2.1. FloNight ♣♣♣ 20:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC) I don't know whether this is true or not, but I don't think it's relevant to decision.
  2. Too wide an assertion. See 2.1. James F. (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Paul August ☎ 02:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Per UC. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:
Not sure all content edits can not be characterized as intending to improve the encyclopedia. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I have assumed good faith on the exceptions. It is clear that the great majority were undertaken to improve the project and the good intentions of all are not contested by any party, indeed many affirm it of those they have dispute with. We can AGF that the rest were mostly intended to be in furtherance of that goal or with the aim of making "roads" better somehow, even if actually at times it was disruptive and divisive, due to friction and the like. Easily amended if still problematic though. Mine would be: "with the intention (if not always the effect)..." which has broad coverage without assuming bad faith. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  1. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ... in their contributions

2.1) All parties concerned have contributed significant content to the project with the broad intention of improving the encyclopædia.

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Both this and 2 cover similar ground, support either/both. Added the word "significant" since each party seems to genuinely have done a fair bit more than "a bit of content" -- in some cases a great deal. I don't think this exaggerates; each of the 8 parties has done this. I would have said "significant valuable content" except I am not necessarily prepared to make a value judgemenbt of that kind here. It is probably true though.
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. UC's concerns are relevant, but the purpose of this is to indicate that our findings on behaviour are not impugning good faith. --bainer (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Better, but I'm still not convinced such a finding on contributors' motives is necessary. We would never pass finding that is the converse of this one ([many] parties have contributed ... with the broad intention of reducing the quality of the encyclopedia) on the grounds that we cannot know the motives. The fact that in its present form this is a platitude doesn't mean we should disregard that.
  2. Paul August ☎ 18:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Not sure speculation as to motives is useful here.
  3. Per UC. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Road-related consistency

3) The issue of whether a given thoroughfare is a road, street, highway, trail (or equivalent to one), or might be categorized as within or outside the scope of a given WikiProject, or how it should be described or named, often involves uncertainties, inconsistencies, and difficulties, and has on many occasions led to unhelpfully lengthy and disruptive disputes. In a number of these disputes, the result appears to have been determined by the "last person left talking" rather than consensus. These uncertainties should be recognised and not made a source of distraction, nor interminably argued in each case, for reasons explained above.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Equal preference with 3.1. Did some rewording (FT2 please check). Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Content not conduct
    This baffles me. Not for the first time on this page. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. In favour of 3.1. James F. (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Paul August ☎ 18:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC) In favor of 3.2.
  4. Content finding. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. I agree but need to think further about whether with this Fof we are making a content decision (not good) or instead helping the users make content decisions (good). FloNight♥♥♥ 20:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    We must have been thinking alike; while you wrote that, I was editing it. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Imperfectly inconsistent policy application is a fact of life

3.1) As in many content policies, in the issues at stake - namely the taxonomy of chronicled items and the scope of WikiProjects - willingness to agree an editorial judgement and tolerance of some inconsistency is required to overcome inherent uncertainties, inconsistencies, and difficulties. Lapses in this area have led on many occasions to unhelpfully lengthy and disruptive disputes; on a number of these, the result was determined by "last person left talking" rather than consensus. These uncertainties should be recognised and not made a source of distraction, nor interminably argued in each case, for reasons explained above.

Support:
  1. Not over-the-moon with the wording. Fixes appreciated. James F. (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Try thatdiff; is that better? Equally happy, this one might be better in fact?FT2 (Talk | email) 23:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Equal preference with 3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC) I've redrafted what I think is the core idea struggling to emerge from this principle.
  2. Paul August ☎ 18:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC) In favor of 3.2.
  3. In favour of 3.2. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Inconsistency in content

3.2) Wikipedia is inconsistent in its editorial policy and content as an inevitable consequence of the consensus editing model. Trivial decisions have the potential to be more acrimonious than major ones (see the parable of the bikeshed). Dealing with inconsistency in article titles and content is inherently in tension with consensus building, since the editing constituency for each article may draw a different conclusion. Wikipedians are expected to exercise sound judgment in determining whether the acrimony resulting from a more consistent approach to content is worthwhile.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Paul August ☎ 18:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC) As distinct from 3 and 3.1 which discuss our observations of fact about the case in hand, this is a pure generic principle. Including it would be unhelpful as a principle (duplication) and also lead to omission of actual facts that should be noted as key to the case and which are the reason for inclusion of the previous versions it tries to replace. Would support if the two actual central fact findings or equivalent was included back again somehow:
    • Identifying the issues at stake as the taxonomy of chronicled items and the scope of WikiProjects
    • Lapses in this area have led on many occasions to unhelpfully lengthy and disruptive disputes; on a number of these, the result was determined by "last person left talking" rather than consensus.
  2. Per Paul. This is a Principle, not a FoF, and isn't necessary anyway. James F. (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] NE2

4) NE2 is respected for his knowledge and exceptional contributions in the topic of roads and their related articles, but has caused friction and project disruption by over-asserting his personal views on standards and procedures [1]. This has included a number of cases of borderline incivility, abrasiveness [2], criticism at the Good Article assessment pages [3], rejection of consensus [4][5][6], tendentiousness [7][8], and edit warring [9][10]. It has also led to NE2 putting his own perspective ahead of broader issues at times, leading to concerns that other problems (including departure of contributors [11]) are being caused as a result.

NE2's motivation is apparently in part a good-faith genuine belief in his own skills and experience, and that he has determined an appropriate standard or response that he feels should apply to the matters in question and would benefit the project.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Some of NE2's recent comments have pushed me toward this Fof. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Generally acceptable, though some toning down might be in order and I would carefully evaluate an alternative proposal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC) I don't think this dispute is clear enough for us to choose winners and losers.
  2. Paul August ☎ 19:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC) While I can agree with some of the criticisms of NE2's conduct expressed here, I think this goes too far.
  3. Per Paul August. While singling out NE2 is legitimate, some of these criticisms of NE2 go too far, while others are appropriate. A toned-down version may be acceptable. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. This is a pots-and-kettles case, and while (as Paul and Sam say above) some of these criticisms are appropriate, NE2 has by no means been the only party involved. --bainer (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Spill-over

5) The issues within this case have spilled over beyond the immediate WikiProject, to cause concern and a degree of disruption at other processes, notably good articles, where they have had a potentially unhelpful discouraging impact in at least two good article assessment requests as well as causing additional stress for users involved in the Good Article processes.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. True and the reason that we need to give guidance. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Paul August ☎ 19:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  9. Per this evidence (not just a problem with NE2). --bainer (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Well I review GA/FAs on a regular basis and find the two cases in question pretty toothless. There are far worse cases of factional voting and other dubious things at FA. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] USRD editors

7) A number of members of WikiProject U.S. Roads have exhibited problematic behaviour from time to time, such as edit warring (evidence, evidence), incivility, and occasional combative behaviour during discussions (example).

Support:
  1. Alternative to the NE2-specific finding above; this could probably be expanded a little with some further examples. --bainer (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Yes. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC) I don't like beating around the bush. If we have something to say, let's make it clear.
Abstain:

[edit] Template

8) {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] Editors counselled

1) Editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic due conflicts with other editors are counselled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area. Sometimes, editors in this position may wish to 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:
  1. FloNight (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Worth considering?
  5. I drafted this originally in the context of bitter ethnic and nationalist disputes, but the thought might apply here too. It should not be construed as encouraging one editor (I refer to no one one in particular) to be brash and difficult and drive others away. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Paul August ☎ 18:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Can't hurt.
  7. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. Per Paul, can't hurt. --bainer (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Unlikely to remedy anything.
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] NE2 admonished

2) NE2 is admonished to act with more awareness of the general needs of his co-editors and non-specialists - namely, that at times fuller less abrasive explanations, consideration of possible concerns regarding conflict of interest related to Good Articles and their assessments, recognition of widely held consensus standards and approaches, and the need to avoid disputes of the kind discussed. He is asked to consider the principles and points made in this decision, and modify his approach to one that can accomodate others in a more congenial manner when differences arise, and that avoids breach of significant communal norms.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Despite the concerns and the prior case (which was not about NE2 and contained no finding related to NE2), I feel that it is possible that if we explain as above, perhaps this will suffice, with backup provisions below to replace this by other remedies if issues by any editor persists.
  2. Unfortunately, we can not avoid mentioning a specific user by name as I hoped that we could. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Would support changing "admonished" to the slightly gentler "counselled," but NE2 should heed the counsel. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Also in favour of making Newyorkbrad's suggested change. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. I haven't been convinced that the problems with NE2's contributions, in context, rise to the level to warrant singling out NE2 for admonishment. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Paul August ☎ 18:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Per UC.
  3. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. A bit flippant but some of the other charges are excessive. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Per oppose on the relevant finding of fact. --bainer (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] WikiProject members encouraged

3) NE2 and other editors of the roads projects are encouraged in their work, and counselled that helpful, informative and supportive communication to others may tend to encourage others in turn, in contributing and interacting.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Paul August ☎ 18:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Can't hurt.
  6. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC) I don't believe it is appropriate for this committee to tell editors to be happy.
    It is however appropriate to counsel them by suggesting conduct that - if taken up - will surely benefit the project and address the issues noted, and to encourage those who have each (for the most part) sought to improve the project to date to the point each specifically endorses the others' positive works. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] USRD members advised

4) All members of WikiProject U.S. Roads are advised that when asserting the existence of a prior consensus, it is necessary to refer to prior discussions or debates on Wikipedia where that consensus has been established.

Support:
  1. Per concerns that USRD has been operating on its own "unwritten guidelines", assumptions that they may well have actually formed amongst themselves but which are totally opaque to outsiders (eg Geometry guy here, Krimpet's concern at the second RfC, plus my own observations having read some of these discussions). See also Daniel Case's view at the first RfC, where he discusses a number of instances of NE2 encountering opposition not for editing against any established consensus, but against the perception of some USRD members of how things ought to be done. --bainer (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. True enough, although I might replace "it is necessary to" with "should be prepared to" or words of like import. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. Agree with Newyorkbrad's suggested wording. As I stated previously, good faith efforts to implement a guideline after a consensus discussion should not require an editor to make a comment on every article talk page as they edit. But it is certainly reasonable to explain the reason for the edit if questioned with a link to the consensus discussion. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. I also agree with making Newyorkbrad's change. This finding should be balanced with a reluctance on all sides to rehash the same discussions. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. Paul August ☎ 19:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

5) (Add draft here)

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Future concerns

1) In the event that the issues addressed in this case and its remedies remain unresolved, a request may be made at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration to provide more specific remedy and enforcement measures pertaining to specific conduct issues.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Although this is true in every case, as the opposers have noted, in a case where the committee is exercising its discretion to apply less rather than more harsh sanctions, a reminder that the latter are available if the former fail can be useful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC) This is true for any case, and adding it to substantially all cases we take on as boilerplate accomplishes nothing useful.
    Whilst true for all, few cases have it as a specific option for a "next step" if the hoped for remedy fails. We are directing them under "enforcement" what to do if the remedies do not resolve the issue. In this case, "come back to us with evidence of specific conduct issues" is proposed, rather than "block any offenders", as a first step, 1/ in the hope that admonishment will in fact suffice and avoid the need for more if matters change, 2/ in recognition that it is not clear as yet which areas by which users will resolve and which if any may need extension, and 3/ it is not clear if matters were to persist whether individual, general or topic based actions would be best and which kinds. Further reasoning at R.2. We obviously would not "take it on for all as a boilerplate" just because it is specifically relevant this time. (Many other matters are always valid, yet we mention only in certain cases where specifically relevant.) FT2 (Talk | email) 22:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Per Steve. Perhaps attach a reminder with the ruling? James F. (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Paul August ☎ 18:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Per UC.
  4. Per UC. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Per UC, though it would indeed be worth reminding people of this in a statement accompanying the closure. --bainer (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Formal enforcement measures not imposed on any editor this time

1.1) No formal enforcement measures are being proposed at this time, in light of the hope that editors will act of their own volition and take with them a more in-depth understanding of the issues, principles, and the disputes themselves, for future benefit and to avoid the need for more formal responses. The Committee hopes not to see these issues raised again in respect of any member of the Roads WikiProject or the WikiProject itself.

Support:
  1. Try this - does it resolve the concerns above? FT2 (Talk | email) 03:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Yes. James F. (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. FloNight ♣♣♣ 20:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Equal preference to 1, and would support combining them or making both part of the decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
    Tried merging them (added 1 before the final sentence of 1.1); lost too much, didn't work for me. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Paul August ☎ 18:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. bainer (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC) I don't object, but then I'm not sure I see the wisdom or utility of this finding. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template

2) (Add draft here)

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

(1)
A topic touched on, on the /Evidence page is insularity. Whilst not part of the main case, it is perhaps worth a comment.

In general, insularity of groups within Wikipedia is strongly discouraged. In a few extreme cases, insularity has led to community-mandated dissolution. In all usergroups -- whether based upon formal committees, communal processes, topic area, personal interest, on-wiki or real-world social groups, or WikiProject -- users are first and foremost part of Wikipedia's open community, and are encouraged to keep the social interface friendly, their internal approaches aligned to the wider project's benefit, and any internal boundaries to the barest minimum consistent with their role.

If there is a risk that the WikiProject has inadvertantly been insular -- and I don't propose to judge this matter at the moment, since this may well be very subjective -- then special awareness of this and an effort to keep the boundaries light and the editing enjoyable, may pay dividends for both the WikiProject and the wider community.

(2)
Separately, in the context of this dispute, users should note that membership/non-membership of a roads-related project is not a statement whether an entity is in fact technically a road, a highway, a street, a trail, or something else, in terms of encyclopedic description. It often pays to focus on the articles, not on the internal labels.

FT2 (Talk | email) 14:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


[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.

  • Proposed temporary injunction "Non-contentious WikiProject decisions and project page edits to resume" passed 02:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC) with 4 supports, no opposes. Per comments, a notice will be placed on the project talk page along with the unprotection. — Coren (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that the preference seems to be to consider 4.1 as a strict subset of 4 and both are currently passing; perhaps the wording "Whilst editors are free to discuss matters of content and policy outside of Wikipedia, only positions expressed on Wikipedia itself are relevant in evaluating consensus. In particular, discussion in IRC or in other offwiki venues is, by itself, insufficient to demonstrate consensus." would represent the Arbitrators' position fairly? — Coren (talk)
  • At this time (20:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)) principles 1, 2, 3, 4, 4.1, 5, 6.2, 7, 8, 9 and 12; findings 1 and 5; remedy 1 and 4; and enforcement 1.1 pass. — Coren (talk)
As P4.1 has been offered as a weaker alternative to P4 and since P4 has more support, 4 supersedes 4.1, and hence 4.1 does not currently pass. Paul August ☎ 20:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
It is to be noted that P4 also has more opposition than 4.1, ending up with both having exactly the same net support. In addition, they are not mutually exclusive and two arbitrators have suggested a merge. — Coren (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Opposes have no effect on the vote; the only part of the votes that matter are the support or the abstain vote( which might matter if it reduces the majority (no the case here.) (Some arbs people skip an alternative proposal instead of opposing.) 4 passes with more support than 4.1 FloNight♥♥♥ 10:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Correcting the decision accordingly, then. — Coren (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Moreover even if 4.1 and 4 were to have had the same number of supports, 4 would still have passed based on preferential voting since Sam Blacketer indicated that 4.1 was his "Second preference". Finally in the event that two alternatives are deemed to have equal support, any new language, such as that proposed above, would need to be offered as a new proposal by an arbiter, voted on, and passed, before being incorporated into the decision. Paul August ☎ 15:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
All noted for future reference. Sorry about the misunderstanding. — Coren (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Paul August ☎ 18:03, 8 April 2008 (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.

Support
  1. Motion to close. I think the decision is fine as is, though I would like to see FoF 3.2 pass. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Close. Paul August ☎ 00:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Close once any final issues about the wording are resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC) Close per FloNight. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. Provisional close once R4 has had a quorum of votes (in total). James F. (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    R4 now passes, so James' provision has been met. Paul August ☎ 20:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. Close on Sunday, giving arbitrators one more chance to vote after I send a note to the mailing list notifying of the status of the case. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose for now. Several proposals currently have 5 votes; the required majority in this case is 6. The case has already been open for far too long, but waiting for another couple of days to finish voting would be appropriate at this point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The majority is now seven due to an error with ACA, now remedied. Daniel (talk) 05:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose withdrawn per above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)