Revision as of 21:45, 10 December 2007

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 9 active Arbitrators, so 5 votes are a majority.

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop. Motions which are accepted for consideration and which require a vote will be placed here by the Arbitrators for voting.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Decorum

1) Misplaced Pages 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)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Editorial process

2) Misplaced Pages 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)

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Abstain:

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)

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:

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:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

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)

Oppose:

Abstain:

TTN

2) TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · 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 (, ).

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)

Abstain:

TTN

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

Support:

1. Mackensen (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Kirill 04:14, 10 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.

Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

TTN admonished

1) TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · 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)

Abstain:

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)

Oppose:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

Parties urged

3) 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)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

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.