Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision.. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

Until the end of this RFAr, the status of WP:NN shall be changed to match Centrx's version. -- Chris chat edits essays 17:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Guideline tags

1) Because of the sheer size of the Wikipedia namespace, it is useful to indicate which pages are supported by consensus and which are not. The mechanism for doing so is putting {{guideline}} (and some variants), on pages which are consensual.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, taken from WP:POL. >Radiant< 23:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No legislation

2) Wikipedia cannot be legislated (at least, not below Board level). Guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. One cannot write down a rule and expect that it will therefore be followed, and if a page describes people's behavior then modifying that page will not somehow cause people to change their behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. It should be obvious that one cannot automatically change behavior by writing about it. >Radiant< 23:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Guideline based on practice

3) Most succesful guidelines are based upon what already happens. New ideas cannot become guideline until they are accepted; an idea that is already accepted (and used in practice) is a good base for a guideline. A personal dislike of consensual practice is not a valid objection against making a guideline of said practice.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. The most effective way of creating guidelines is by writing down current practice. >Radiant< 23:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Outcome of process

3b) The common outcome of a frequently-used consensus-gathering process is a reasonable representation of consensus, and thus a plausible base for a guideline.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. For instance, Wikipedia has a guideline that every village, no matter how small, deserves an article. This guideline is not (to my knowledge) specifically written down anywhere but it can be easily tested by nominating an article on a small village for deletion. Not everything about Wikipedia is written down, and an obvious outcome does not require extensive debate. >Radiant< 10:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Courtesy

4) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other. This becomes even more important when disputes arise. See Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:Wikiquette.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Consensus can not be reached if discussions do not remain civil. --FloNight 01:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring considered harmful

5) Edit warring is considered harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. The three-revert rule should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to three reverts, nor does it endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Discussion is needed to reach consensus not reverting. --FloNight 01:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ban for disruption

6) Users who disrupt editing of policy or guidelines by aggressive biased (tendentious) editing or other disruptive behavior may be banned from the affected pages if there is broad agreement from the community or an arb com ruling.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed FloNight 01:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Voting is discouraged

7) Since Wikipedia is not a democracy, voting is discouraged as a mechanism for consensus building. Discussion and compromise are the preferred methods. See also the long-standing pages meta:Polling is evil and meta:Don't_vote_on_everything.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This old practice seems relevant to mention. >Radiant< 16:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Guideline process

8) Since there is no formal process for making guidelines, a statement that a guideline was created out of process is meaningless. For the same reason, an assumption that a proposal must go through "stages" or must be "promoted from essay status" is incorrect. Similarly, since guidelines are not enacted through a vote, an objection to a guideline on grounds that it was not voted upon is groundless.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Clarify that WP:NOT a bureaucracy. >Radiant< 16:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Guideline rejection

9) A proposal is rejected if, after some discussion, there is no consensus for it. There does not have to be "consensus to reject" a proposal; if there is no consensus either way, the proposal has still failed. The tag {{rejected}} is used to indicate this fact; that tag does not in any way prohibit people from discussing the matter further.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Taken from WP:POL with slight expansion. >Radiant< 16:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Vexatious litigation

10) If a proposal is rejected, any minor rewording of it or small variation to it is likewise rejected.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Taken from old experience with Zen-master. Once more, WP:NOT a bureaucracy. >Radiant< 16:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Consensus can change

11) Consensus opinions about both encyclopedia articles and established guidelines/policies can change and discussion aimed at evaluation or looking into alternatives is encouraged.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed -- To clarify that this policy does not only apply to the articles, but also to policy and guidelines itself. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"Voting" is necessary

12) Although simple vote counting is not the way in which consensus is formed in Wikipedia, many processes in the development of the encyclopedia have strong characteristics of voting, e.g. WP:AFD or WP:RFA. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, because several processes use voting as a major part of reaching consensus. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Voting on proposals is not useful

13) Because vote counting is not the way in which consensus is formed in Wikipedia, and because a vote tends to represent issues as binary, discourage discussion and preclude compromise, it is not generally useful to poll or vote on proposals.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Corollary of 8. Again, it is a common misconception that proposals must or should be voted upon. >Radiant< 10:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Another term for 'common misconception' is 'existing practice'... which is one of the ways we define guidelines and policies. Polling opinions can indeed be very problematic in some cases, but it has also always been a part of the Wikipedia process of making decisions... as will be seen again when the arbitrators "vote" on the elements of this RFAr. --CBD 12:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Purpose of the ArbCom

14) The ArbCom exists for conflict resolution. Its purpose is not to create or decide upon policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Corollary of Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy#Rules. >Radiant< 10:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Appears to suggest that the arbitration committee should not deal with this matter. The arbitration committee, however, can judge on how policy is made (when disputes occur over that, as is the case now) rather than make policy themselves. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Exactly. I believe that is the point of this case; however, we should not establish a system where proposals are submitted to the arbcom for approval. >Radiant< 11:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Heh, wouldn't a ruling on "how policy is made" inherently be an instance of the ArbCom 'creating or deciding upon policy'? If '8' is correct and 'there is no formal process' then how is the ArbCom to define one without violating this principle 14?--CBD 12:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• There sure is a paradox there. But the same is true for all other cases taken on by the committee. They start (usually) off as a content dispute, leading to a tense situation, edit warring and eventually an arbitration committee decision (in which the committee does not make content, but it sure decides who was right). The same is true here, but now for policy pages rather than an article. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Non-notability

1) The proposal at WP:NNOT is not supported by consensus, and therefore rejected.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Obvious. >Radiant< 16:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Non-notability conflicts

2) The proposal at WP:NNOT conflicts with key policy and guidelines such as such as CSD A7. .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --FloNight 17:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Notablity

3) The many users against WP:N makes establishing true consensus for this proposal impossible.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

-- Chris chat edits essays 17:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Notability debate

4) Although supported by many editors, the proposal/essay at WP:N is often highly debated and does not have community-wide consensus at this time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, the fact that there is an arbitration about this (with multiple editors on each side of the dispute) already shows that true consensus will be impossible here. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:N

5) The guideline at WP:N is an accurate description of current practice at Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Although I don't see why the arbcom would have to judge on this (per principle above). >Radiant< 10:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Reply to Radiant: True, but that holds for all findings of fact (1-5) at the moment. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: