Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all proposed

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.
  • Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if they so choose. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

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.

On this case, 10 Arbitrators are active and none are recused, so 6 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop.

[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] Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Consensus decision making

1) Wikipedia works by building consensus. Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process. See Wikipedia:Consensus.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 09:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 23:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. FloNight 14:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Charles Matthews 20:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Effective consensus decision making

1.1) Effective decision making using consensus requires appropriate framing of questions, adequate discussion of alternative solutions, and closure when a decision is reached, see Consensus decision-making for an extended discussion.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 09:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 23:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. FloNight 14:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Charles Matthews 20:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Principles of consensus decision making

1.2) Rather than simply list known alternatives, debate for a short time, vote, and then accept or reject by some measure, a consensus decision-making process involves identifying and addressing concerns, generating new alternatives, combining elements of multiple alternatives and checking that people understand a proposal or an argument, Consensus_decision-making#Key_principles.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 09:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 23:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. FloNight 14:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Charles Matthews 20:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Closing of a consensus process

1.3) After extended discussion, to be effective, the consensus decision making process must close. In many Wikipedia decision making processes, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, an administrator or bureaucrat "closes" the discussion by evaluating the arguments, considering which alternatives have more support and announces a decision, which may be "no consensus", an outcome which, depending on the context, usually has definite consequences. In other, less structured, situations, as in the case of how to structure the titles of television episodes, there is no formal closer. Nevertheless, considering the alternatives proposed, the extended discussion engaged in, expressions of preference, there is a result which should be respected. Absent formal closing, it is the responsibility of users to evaluate the process and draw appropriate conclusions.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 09:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Though there are, and always need to be, ways to reopen discussions if needed. SimonP 23:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Agree but also discussion can continue as long as it is not disruptive. FloNight 14:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Agree, and consensus can change also. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Charles Matthews 20:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Appeal to the Arbitration Committee not viable

2) In the absence of an authoritative procedure for closing of a consensus decision making process, recourse has been had to the Arbitration Committee. As a regular procedure this is not viable, due to the press of business, the appearance that the Arbitration Committee is making policy rather than simply determining if there was a consensus, and the lack of behavior problems by the participants in the dispute.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 23:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. FloNight 14:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 20:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] When in doubt, involve others

2.1) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to make policy or "read" poll results. In the absence of an authoritative procedure for closing of a consensus decision making process, the passage of time and involvment of additional editors is the best means of achieving clarity. Editors who are dissatisfied with a decision arrived at through consensus may endeavour to change it, c.f. Wikipedia:Consensus can change.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 08:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 23:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. FloNight 14:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 20:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Off in the fog Fred Bauder 04:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Protection of jurisdictional role

3) The Arbitration Committee may, in the course of protecting its jurisdictional role of resolving behavioral disputes rather than deciding policy, make such rules as are necessary.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Agree that this needs to be done rarely if ever but I think Arbitration Committee can do so if a large part of the community requests it and it is the best way to solve a serious issue. FloNight 14:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. We can make rules; but cannot assume they are supported, so they may look like the expedients they are. Charles Matthews 20:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 09:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Not sure this is germane, but perhaps I could be convinced.
  2. James F. (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Not sure that this is necessary.
  3. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. SimonP 23:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual harrassment prohibited

4) Sexual harrassment, including but not limited to unwanted sexual advances or innuendo, disrupts the collegial, respectful environment Wikipedia seeks to create for editors.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 09:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. As part of general civility rules. SimonP 23:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 04:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. FloNight 14:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Charles Matthews 20:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] No personal attacks

5) No personal attacks.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 09:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 23:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 04:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. FloNight 14:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Charles Matthews 20:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Titles of episodes of television series

1) There has been an extended discussion regarding the Wikipedia:Naming conventions for the titles of episodes of television series; a consensus decision was reached, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions#Statement_by_Yaksha, but is not respected by some users, possibly due to lack of an authoritative and generally respected procedure for closing the consensus decision making process, see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(television)#Episode_articles.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 09:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 23:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. FloNight 14:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Charles Matthews 20:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] User:Izzy Dot

2) User:Izzy Dot has engaged in a pattern of sexual harrassment through a series of unwanted advances and innuendos.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 09:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Comments were unacceptable, but it does concern me that this issue was not really brought up by anyone on the evidence page, and that this is here more because of our own investigating. SimonP 23:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. FloNight 14:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Examples noted by users on accompanying talk page. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 20:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. No evidence cited Fred Bauder 04:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC) There is one gross incident and some unfortunate remarks. Fred Bauder 22:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Personal attacks

3) The Committee notes that numerous personal attacks have been made in the course of this dispute.

Support:

:#The Uninvited Co., Inc. 09:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  1. SimonP 23:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Probably true but not the issue. Fred Bauder 04:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

Withdrawn. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[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] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Closing of a consensus decision making procedure

1) It is the responsibility of the administrators and other responsible parties to close extended policy discussions they are involved in, such as this dispute. Closing consists of announcing the decision at the locations of the discussion and briefly explaining the basis for closing it in the way it is being closed; further, to change any policy pages, guidelines or naming conventions to conform with the decision; and finally, to enforce the decision with respect to recalcitrant users who violate the decision, after reminding them and warning them.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 09:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 23:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. FloNight 14:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 20:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] No penalties for violation of consensus

2) Given the existence of some uncertainty regarding how to determine if there is consensus in a particular case, no remedy is proposed concerning those who violated the consensus in this matter for past violations of policy.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 09:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC). I have amended the title.
  3. SimonP 23:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. FloNight 14:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Charles Matthews 20:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] User:Izzy Dot banned

3) Izzy Dot's editing privileges are suspended for a period of 14 days.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 09:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 23:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. FloNight 14:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 20:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Fred Bauder 22:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. No supporting evidence Fred Bauder 04:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] No penalties for personal attacks

4) The Arbitration Committee realizes that personal attacks, while proscribed, are nonetheless increasingly common at Wikipedia. While the committee takes a dim view of such behavior and is likely to issue remedies more liberally in future cases involving personal attacks, no penalties are proposed for this case.

Support:

:# The Uninvited Co., Inc. 09:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC). Editors should be made aware that this is becoming an enforcement priority.

  1. James F. (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Hmm. But yes.
Oppose:
  1. Withdrawn. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Issue was not before us. Fred Bauder 04:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Agree with SimonP. FloNight 14:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Gives the impression that personal attacks are more common and that ArbCom has been previously very lenient, which I disagree with. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. NPA is a constant. Charles Matthews 20:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. I'm not certain that they are becoming increasingly more common. I also disagree that the ArbCom has been over liberal in dealing with them. Personal attacks, in part because they are quick and easy to demonstrate, are almost always dealt with when included in the evidence of a case. SimonP 23:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Violation of consensus

1) Any user who purposely violates the consensus decision in this matter during the next 180 days may be briefly blocked. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Administrators are expected to use discretion and judgment in enforcing this remedy rather than implementing it in a mechanical fashion.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 09:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Amended.
  3. SimonP 23:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. FloNight 14:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 20:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
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.

All pass but:

Principles

  • 2) Appeal to the Arbitration Committee not viable (5-0-0), one short of majority
  • 2.1) When in doubt, involve others (5-1-0) One short of majority
  • 3)Protection of jurisdictional role (3-3-1)

Findings of Fact

  • 3) Personal Attacks (2-1-0) (Withdrawn)

Remedies

  • 4)No Penalty for Personal Attacks (1-5-1)

Cowman109Talk 20:27, 19 January 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, since no further motions or votes have been forthcoming for 6 days. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Close, aye. Nothing more to do, I think. James F. (talk) 08:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    Close. FloNight 12:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Delay close for 24 hours to allow Elonka to complete giving evidence. [1] FloNight 18:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. ok, ready to close now. No changes needed after reviewing the new evidence, workshop items, and talk page comments. --FloNight 02:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Close. - SimonP 13:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Close. I've reviewed Elonka's new evidence and do not believe that the decision needs to be revised. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)