Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:25, 31 October 2006

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

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:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Policy proposals

1) A good policy proposal should have three qualities. (1) A description of a real and present problem, as opposed to a hypothetical one; (2) A plausible way of solving this problem; and (3) a lack of undesirable side-effects.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. >Radiant< 08:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I intend to write an essay/proposed guideline (I haven't decided which yet) about this. 08:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Opposed as stated. While most policy proposals probably satisfy these criteria, I believe that they are too limiting to be applied on a uniform basis. On (1), there is nothing wrong with being "proactive" and preventing problems before they arise, or from dealing with situations, the existence of which is difficult to prove but the consequences of which would be very serious. As for (2), I would add after "solving," the words "or reducing." Or if you wish, alleviating, ameliorating, or some other word to indicate that a policy is acceptable even if it does not completely solve a problem, as long as it makes the situation better. On (3), I would say that it should be a lack of undesirable side-effects that outweigh the benefits of the proposal. Just because there are side-effects doesn't mean the policy shouldn't be adopted, if the side-effects are less serious than the issue being addressed. 6SJ7 10:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per the reasons so well stated by 6SJ7. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making proposals

2) The way to reach consensus on a proposal is to open it to debate, and to reword it based upon objections. Refusing to compromise will not help forming consensus; however, consensus does not equate to unanimity.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. >Radiant< 08:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Good policy develops by being reworked to take account of objections, not by ignoring them. Thryduulf 08:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I can only agree there. Given a large enough number of people you will always get those on the fringe which will disagree to any compromise the wide majority would agree to. Still, to declare consensus it is not enough to state PERCENT agree, so it is consensus. Rather the issues of all involved must be adressed in the compromise. Charon X/talk 12:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is discouraged

3) Since Wikipedia is not a democracy, voting is discouraged as a mechanism for consensus building. Discussion and compromise are the preferred methods. 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. 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< 08:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are other reasons for discouraging a show of hands. Some of these are bad reasons. For instance, discouraging a show of hands to avoid making manifest that one's position represents a distinct minority. For this reason and others, 'discouraged' should not be taken to mean 'prevented by all possible means'. Herostratus 16:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support proposal, and "'discouraged' should not be taken to mean 'prevented by all possible means'". However voting should not be used to prevent discussion and by doing so prevent attempts to reach consensus. What is important is why the minority hold their view, not that they are a minority. For example in an AfD debate, if one group want to keep an article because they like the subject and another group want to delete because it is unverifiable, it doesn't matter which group are the minority. Thryduulf 09:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is one of those unique situations where conducting a poll would have actually been useful since most of the bickering was not about the proposal itself but whether or not there was concensus or potential for concensus. One side stated that the proposal was dead and did not have any chance of achieving consensus. The other side stated that the proposal either did have consensus or still had potential for achieving consensus. A poll could have easily resolved this question and would not have precluded discussion since discussion of the policy itself had largely run its course. Kaldari 20:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A poll to test consensus isn't in and of itself evil, but it polarises a debate. Who's to say how many viewpoints there are and exactly what they are? Sure, we could have a make-your-own category poll, some people laying out their viewpoint and others commenting on them, but that's what a discussion is. If there is one poll choice that's pro-proposal, but six choices that involve changing it, that spreads out the vote—not to mention the potential for bickering about an unfair poll after one side loses. Being in the discussion I can easily recall four distinct ideas on what the proposal should become, and that's without going through the page history. Polls are too easily manipulated, the big problem with a poll is someone has to organise it and one person is not guaranteed to be impartial. BigNate37_(T) 00:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Opposed. I believe polling can be useful under appropriate circumstances. I don't think the current process of policy consideration by edit-warring (or at least skirmishing) and aimless discussion is working. It certainly didn't work for this proposal. 6SJ7 10:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal rejection

4) 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< 08:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. If I have anything to say here at all, this is it. A policy proposal is not binary; it does not create two poles, one of which must be the outcome. Rather, it sets up a locus of discussion, around which consensus may or may not condense. If consensus does condense, the {{guideline}} tag is appropriate; some higher bar must be passed in order for {{policy}} to replace it -- length of time, stability of page, lack of meaningful opposition.

The {{rejected}} tag is probably a mistake, as is the underlying manner in which we speak of a proposal that's not going anywhere. Unless consensus does gather around an opposing proposal, it's probably misleading to say the community has rejected the first one; it might be better to label it {{stalled}} or {{inactive}}. Terms such as {{rejected}}, {{failed}}, {{defeated}}, or {{historical}} may be seen as attempts to close the book on a proposal, which is usually wrong absent that opposing consensus. It's more appropriate to say that a proposal has so far failed, leaving the door open to revision and improvement.

Not to muddy the waters here: I do endorse at least the first two sentences of this item, and the third with a quibble. John Reid 11:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support this. "Inactive" and "historical" wouldn't have been apropriate here, as there was activity but not productive activity. "Failed" would be apropriate, if it included something along the lines of "If you are interested in reviving this topic, consider making significant changes to overcome the objections raised on the talk page." Thryduulf 09:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is taken right from policy, I fail to see why so many would oppose it. If its the connotation to the word "rejected", shouldn't we just change the rejected template to be in accordance with policy rather than the other way around? BigNate37_(T) 14:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Opposed. First of all, I believe that if there is going to be a "rejected" tag placed on a proposal, it should be done with the same formality and safeguards as other processes that require a non-involved administrator, or perhaps even a bureaucrat, to make that determination. Second of all, I do not see what the big hurry is to slap a "rejected" label on something, unless of course you oppose the proposal and are trying to stifly discussion. I believe "accept" or "reject" should stand on an equal, or almost, equal footing, so that if a "consensus" is required for "accept", at least a supermajority should be required for "reject." Otherwise the discussion can go on. As I have seen others say in other contexts, Wikipedia has the hard drive space. 6SJ7 10:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A completely un-wiki, bureaucratic, vote-counting way to handle it. If consensus is there, fine. If consensus isn't there, it's rejected. I also oppose banning non-admins from handling a routine duty- if it's truly done in bad faith, it'll be reverted, otherwise it should be discussed. Ral315 (talk) 12:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it "un-wiki" to permit discussion to go on, without the distraction of a sign that says "rejected", unless the "community" has affirmatively rejected it. What part of the wiki philosophy requires that proposals be rejected by default? 6SJ7 12:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6SJ7, you are hung up on wording. Read the {{rejected}} tag and WP:POL#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc. The comments above treat this nicely. Note that Template:Rejected isn't protected, so if it needs to be revised to be in accordance with policy, feel free. It may be best to rename it, but for this discussion that's what we have and more than a couple users understand how it is to be used according to policy. BigNate37_(T) 16:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a pretty nasty and rude response. 6SJ7 04:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haste

5) Editors should not be over-hasty in tagging a proposal as Rejected. There's no hurry. Editors should avoid placing a Rejected tag on proposals where there is a significant ongoing discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Herostratus 16:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object to this, see 5.1 below. Thryduulf 09:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support for the reasons stated in number 4. 6SJ7 11:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5.1) Editors should not be overly hasty in tagging a proposal as Rejected. Editors should avoid placing a Rejected tag on proposals where there is significant ongoing productive discussion about the proposal. If there is discussion that does not appear productive, or only discussion not about the proposal, then it will usually be best to propose tagging it on the talk page.

Editors are reminded that edit warring is bad, and if they object to a proposal being tagged as rejected, they should discuss their objections on the talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Thryduulf 09:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Opposed, as I believe Herostratus's statement is better. Who is deciding what is "productive" discussion? In this case, it was some of the people who opposed the policy anyway, so of course they didn't think the discussion was productive. As for the statement that "edit warring is bad," it is indeed bad, but it is just as bad on the part of those who favor tagging a proposal as rejected, as it is on the part of those who oppose the tag. 6SJ7 11:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I felt the the discussion was unproductive was that it wasn't addressing the reasons why I and others were opposed to it. There was no attempt by Herostratus to explain why he disagreed with the opinions of others, or to answer any of the questions asked. If you read the section of the talk page that led to the rejected tag being applied for the second time, you will find a consensus that it was going nowhere. Thryduulf 18:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Least destructive state

6) In the event of a disagreement or edit war tags on a proposal, if protection is requested, proposals should be protected in the least destructive state. In the event of an disagreement over whether a proposal is Rejected or still Proposed, Proposed is the least destructive state.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Herostratus 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should be ammended in a way such that it does not imply justification for wheel warring or acting in a conflict of interest with regard to use of a sysop bit. BigNate37_(T) 02:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Utterly oppose any principle that says that one tag is always better than the other. See m:The Wrong Version; does it really matter if it says it's rejected for a short while? Ral315 (talk) 04:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this proposal, I agree completely with Ral315 and BigNate37's comments. Thryduulf 09:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support for reasons stated under number 4. 6SJ7 11:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. If there is a significant argument about whether something is 'rejected' or 'ongoing' then surely it has failed to achieve consensus and is therefore 'rejected' as a result? Cynical 13:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can only agree with Cynical - if somebody says "there is consensus" and about half of the people disagree it cannot be consensus. Charon X/talk 12:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see ArbCom endorsing this, per Ral315's comments. Stifle (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Role of Arbitration Committee

1) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to impose new Wikipedia policy, however the Arbitration Committee may rule on the status of a particular proposal, as it may rule on any other dispute on Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support, very sensible. Thryduulf 01:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support, I wouldn't want this to be used as a rationale for more civil proposal discussions to end up asking the comittee to rule on consensus. This is here in part because of the dispute, hostility, back-and-forth bickering and edit/wheel-warring. BigNate37_(T) 05:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I doubt the ArbCom really wants the role of mediating "any dispute". Addressing editor behavior and clarifying policies should be sufficient. Kaldari 20:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Seems to clarify one of the problems people have with this case even existing. Cynical 13:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully you meant "conduct dispute". —freak(talk) 10:28, Oct. 30, 2006 (UTC)

Whack with an axe. This is the camel's nose. If we permit this, we invite ArbCom to decide everything -- and very soon, every dispute will wind up here. We do not need to give ArbCom absolute power. ArbCom must be limited to issues involving the conduct of editors -- editors who then go about their business, which is in part to create policy. John Reid 18:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah, don't buy that concern. I think the issue is that arb-com are being asked to look at the behaviour of people edit warring on the page in question over what tag to add to the page. At some point in determining that they have to work out whether a consensus had established or not. Given that we only create policy where consensus exists, and a lack of a consensus is all that is needed to determine something as rejected, then it follows that arb-com do have the power to judge if someone is pushing a POV when tagging something either as rejected or as policy/guidance. There's no camels nose here, and power is still in our hands. I mean, blimey, we can sack the whole arb-com if we really want, by the simple measure of not bringing any cases to them. Power rests everywhere, and is best wielded only when needed. I think the powers suggested here may well be needed in this case, and I don't see that as a power grab. Wikipedia is not a formal entity with a constitution or rigid power structure. Wikipedia operates on shifting sand and plays loose and fast with any notions of a solidified ruleset as needs must. Steve block Talk 20:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If editors have tag-warred on this page, admins should block them. If admins have tag-warred on this page, ArbCom quite properly investigates this and sanctions involved parties. It does not dictate the status of the proposal. That is the line we are crossing here. John Reid 01:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support, per the commonly accepted principle of Judicial review, which hasn't made courts dictatorial where it has been used. Unfortunately, we don't have any standards for making guidelines and policies. This, at least, would be better than nothing. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here in the US, the Supreme Court has been legislating from the bench for my entire lifetime. Some of this new law has been good law; some has been bad law. None of it has been our law. John Reid 01:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: