Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 05:19, 4 October 2024

WP:ARBATC

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: AlexandrDmitri (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: David Fuchs (Talk)

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	6
1–2	5
3–4	4

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Under no circumstances may this page be edited, except by members of the Arbitration Committee or the case Clerks. Please submit comment on the proposed decision to the talk page.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

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:

Comments:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Editorial process

1) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Support:

Standard. This applies to moving articles as well as editing them. PhilKnight (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AGK [•] 23:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
--Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 21:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

The Manual of Style

2) Style guides are used as a means of creating a consistent end result. They do not affect content, but rather how that content is presented. The English Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MoS) is a guideline, or a set of "best practices" supported by consensus. The MoS is not a collection of hard rules.

Support:

PhilKnight (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know, for "not affect[ing] content", I've seen a lot of consternation over MoS issues over the years I've been here. Jclemens (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AGK [•] 23:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But see somewhat irrelevant comment Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Copyedited for grammar.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 21:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(more copyedits, "they do are not affect" doesn't make sense...) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Technically the diacritic guidelines at least do affect content, as Tômäs Tânkěńjin is not the same as Tomas Tankenjin, and unlike this case, where it's still the same bird whether it's a Lesser Coal-Tit, a Lesser Coal Tit or a lesser coal tit, the decision to abandon diacritics entirely in certain cases does affect the amount of information available. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Policy and guidelines

3) A higher standard for participation and consensus exists for changes to policies and guidelines, as stated in Wikipedia:Consensus#Level of consensus.

Support:

PhilKnight (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Corollary: if you can't interest enough people in a particular discussion, it probably should not be accorded the status of "guideline" or "policy", even if the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is unanimous. Jclemens (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Especially pertinent to MOS disputes and the matter in hand. AGK [•] 23:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
--Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Minor copyedit.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 21:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Good faith and disruption

4) Behavior that violates Wikipedia's policies, even if driven by good intentions, is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.

Support:

PhilKnight (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They all think they are bang to rights. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has noted on the talkpage that if taken too literally, this principle would negate WP:IAR. I am pretty certain, however, that when both sentences are read together, the principle will not be taken in that fashion. Presumably, if an action violates Wikipedia policies but is sustained under IAR, that will be because on the whole, it reduces disruption or produces some other benefit that outweighs the disruption. In any event, while I appreciate the commenter's point, I don't think it's essential that we copyedit to address it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contra AGK, this makes sense to include, in the MOS, like elsewhere, good faith isn't a justification for disruption. Courcelles 21:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding NYB's comments; the wording of this principle focuses on disruptive actions. An action taken under the auspices of IAR should not, by definition, be disruptive, but directly aid the project. If it is disruptive, IAR cannot be used as a shield to defend one's actions, which is something covered in principles in previous cases. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Having had time to consider the views of the others, while I don't disagree with this principle per se, I still do not think it requires inclusion: other than the standard assumption that an editor will hold a given view in good faith, the issue of "taking AGF too far" was never really a significant consideration in this dispute. I therefore do not consider this relevant enough to be included in the principles for this decision. (Of course, this is a token vote, and I don't want to pursue discussion on this subject: we certainly have better things to do.) AGK [•] 21:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

~~This will probably be one of our leaner decisions, but I still don't see why this requires inclusion. AGK [•] 23:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

Manual of Style as unique style guide

1) The English Wikipedia Manual of Style has been built from a number of pre-existing Manuals from numerous fields. The best practices from these have been combined to create a single, unique MOS that applies to articles on the English Wikipedia.

Support:

PhilKnight (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although, obviously, not every portion of the MoS is necessary applicable to every article in Wikipedia. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And it's also worth noting that there are many aspects of the MoS which specify multiple correct alternative ways to represent something. Jclemens (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AGK [•] 23:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't say anything about being built on the corpses of warring editors.....--Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a general comment that can go as well here as anywhere. Wikipedia is built on the strengths of its editors, and one of the strengths that many Wikipedians have is attention to detail: for example, noticing inconsistencies of form or style, and being willing to expend time and effort to rectify them. Good judgment is required, however, to draw the line between useful work, such as ensuring that titles of articles on parallel topics have parallel names or that the best title for each article has been used, and pointless, destructive bickering that most outside observers would characterize as arguing about nothing that matters, especially given the robustness of the redirect system. Emerson famously said that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds," but that doesn't mean we don't strive for consistency; it means we maintain a sense of proportion about these things. And readers with an American legal background will be reminded of Richard Posner's admonition in his article "Goodbye to the Bluebook" (53 U Chi L Rev 1343): the purpose of a style guide "is defeated when the form book becomes so complex that considerable time is spent studying, consulting, extrapolating from, and resolving contradictions in it." Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per NYB; the MoS is there to, at least in part, reduce bickering over stylistic issues. We're producing an encyclopaedia here, that a style guide has also been produced is a necessity, not the end of itself. Courcelles 21:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Jclemens, I agree, and in my own consideration of this dispute I wondered if we should include a finding that the MOS is a guideline, does not apply in full to every article, and is subject to significant considerations of editorial preference and regional exceptions. AGK [•] 23:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think we should emphasise that the Wikipedia community has decided not to have a house style that is binding in all cases. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Locus of dispute

2) This dispute concerns contentious edits to the MoS and article naming pages that have been occurring sporadically for years. The incident that precipitated this arbitration case was a rapid series of edits at WP:TITLE.

Support:

PhilKnight (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copy-edited for clarity. AGK [•] 23:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
--Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Grammar copyedit.) As a nuance, these pages have been plagued by a series of disputes, rather than the one dispute that we are reviewing here in particular. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, NYB, there have been a long series of disputes (major and minor) over these pages, and e're just reviewing one here. Courcelles 21:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Pmanderson

Pmanderson (1)

3) Pmanderson (talk · contribs) disrupted MoS-related discussions through JCScaliger (talk · contribs), a sockpuppet and named party to this case.

Support:

PhilKnight (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Copy-edited.) AGK [•] 23:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, yes. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per EotR. Or should that be "EOTR"? Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 21:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Pmanderson (2)

3.1) Pmanderson (talk · contribs) is currently under a one-year ban from the MOS placed by the Community, which the JCScaliger account was used to circumvent.

Support:

Simple statement of facts. Courcelles 21:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this should probably be linked to, whether in a separate paragraph as here or as an addition to 3. I take it that if adopted, this would be in addition, not as an alternative, to 3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PhilKnight (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AGK [•] 21:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

NYB, yes, I consider this an addition to 3, not an alternative. Courcelles

Pmanderson (3)

3.2) Pmanderson (talk · contribs) has an extensive block log, with blocks for issues including edit warring, move warring, violations of topic bans, disruptive editing, and personal attacks.

Support:

Another addition that summarizes the history of this editor. Courcelles 22:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Factual, though I'm not sure this piling on is essential (see my comment on the new remedy proposal below). Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PhilKnight (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure this is necessary to note here in light of the stuff above, but ok. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 03:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I suppose so. AGK [•] 21:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Born2cycle

4) Born2cycle (talk · contribs)'s editing on the disputed pages and related subjects has hampered efforts at resolution, specifically by excessive responses and not following the spirit of WP:BRD.

Support:

Jclemens (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to the debate about TITLE, I don't see that Born2cycle's contributions were any more or less constructive than that of the other parties. His pursuit of consensus was questionable, his immovable grasp of WP:BRD was especially disappointing, and the dirt file was unacceptable. (Other misconduct is detailed here.) However, he attempted to reduce the length of his responses with User:Born2cycle/pledge (I'm unsure how far he honoured that commitment), and I am concerned that we may have placed an undue focus on this editor because he is outnumbered in the content dispute, and perhaps therefore in the balance of evidence in this case. Nevertheless, I agree it is necessary to make a specific finding for Born2cycle, and I do support; I only wanted to spell out some of my minor reservations. AGK [•] 00:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
--Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 21:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PhilKnight (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I'm not convinced the conduct in question rises to the level of an arbitration finding; the fact that the evidence was weak should not necessarily cause us to adopt a lower threshold for accepting it. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

I think it's worth noting here in addition to the workshop page that the only reason Born2cycle is singled out in a finding is because evidence against other parties was weak. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But in this regard note SarekofVulcan's comment on the talkpage that he could have assembled evidence against other editors, but our increasingly strict enforcement of word and diffs limits would have made it impossible for him to submit the evidence. None of us like to read overlong screeds and this is why we have limits, but not for the first time I'm going to worry here if in doing so we've cut ourselves off from relevant evidence unnecessarily. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with NYB here, the evidence length restrictions have, I believe, left several other parties conduct unaddressed here. Having red the evidence page over the last 36 hours, I would like us to go back to that stage and give three or four days to allow further evidence submissions. Courcelles 21:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that reopening /evidence now would lead to reviving old grievances that might otherwise have faded. That might be a necessary evil, except that the discretionary sanctions remedy will allow for any necessary enforcement going forward against anyone creating further problems in this area. I would like to think that should be sufficient to either prevent or if necessary cut off further problems. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing that we have a problem here, I can't help but thinking that discussing two editors, and dumping the rest of the problem on AE is a failure of us to, as we often say, "break the back" of this dispute. AE is for continued problems, not for us to vacate examining the conduct of all parties. We don't need another workshop, or even to reopen the actual /Evidence page, , we could just set up a subpage of this PD page and give three or four days for more evidence, and then manage to unravel this mess. Courcelles 22:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Let's see what the others think. One question that might be relevant to how to move forward is whether this episode is genuinely in the past tense at this point or if it appears ready to flare up again.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very reluctant to reopen the evidence section once voting has begun. Participants are free to submit what evidence they will, and submissions on the evidence page are public; thus, participants are free to prioritize their evidence based on what others have sent in and what they believe is important to include. They are also free to get in touch with the clerks or Committee for an exemption to the evidence limits if it is absolutely necessary. I'm fairly sure that AE will be capable of handling any further issues should they remain following the case. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A "general warning" to the parties may allow us to close this case without taking several steps backwards, and with some kind of remedial action with respect to the parties other than Born2cycle and Pmanderson. If there is significant appetite to take a closer look at the other parties, then you will have my support, but I would certainly prefer we move towards closure. AGK [•] 21:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Born2cycle was the subject of a monumental amount of complaints for his editing at the Yoggit rfc, and also prior to that. Personally, I think several editors have focused on ridiculous minutiae for no apparent reason (I can recall making the point somewhere that it's not as if these guys suspected their grandfathers of taking up arms against each other!!), but in addition to the evidence here, Born is the one that got the most complaints at other venues. It spilled onto my talkpage, and although I never offered much of an opinion (condemned the lot of them to some lower circle of hell/endless travel on the Circle line at more than one point), it did strike me that Born was very similar in problematicalness to User:Gavin.Collins, and was the one likely to end up sanctioned.

It is possible to be more problematic endlessly arguing the toss in something that ultimately is no different whichever spelling you choose, than it is advancing a really contentious argument in a sensitive area, but backing off just because other people are getting upset. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

All parties reminded (1)

1.1) All parties are reminded to avoid personalizing Manual of Style disputes, and to work collegiately towards a workable consensus. In particular, a rapid cycle of editing the pages to reflect one's viewpoint, then discussing the changes is disruptive and should be avoided: carefully consider edits to MoS pages and to explain all changes promptly on the talk page.

Support:

Second choice to 1.2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice; prefer 1.2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Prefer 1.2. PhilKnight (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 1.2. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer R1.2. AGK [•] 23:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In preference to 1.2 Courcelles 21:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

All parties reminded (2)

1.2) All parties are reminded to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style, the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE'), and similar policy and guideline pages, and to work collegiately towards a workable consensus. In particular, a rapid cycle of editing these pages to reflect one's viewpoint, then discussing the changes is disruptive and should be avoided. Instead, parties are encouraged to establish consensus on the talk page first, and then make the changes.

Support:

Prefer this version. PhilKnight (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is BRD, and then there is editing in a divisive manner during a dispute over a policy or guideline page. Jclemens (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AGK [•] 23:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rapid cycling through edits on policy pages can be very disruptive. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed copyedit per talkpage discussion: change "the MoS disputes" to "disputes concerning the manual of style, the article titles policy, and similar policy and guideline pages"; change "the pages" to "these pages". Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 22:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I've made the copyedit proposed by Newyorkbrad. PhilKnight (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pmanderson restricted (1)

2.1) If Pmanderson's blocks expire, he is prohibited from engaging in discussions and edits relating to the Manual of Style indefinitely.

Support:

Second choice; prefer 2.2 and see my comment there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Prefer 2.2; I see no reason to impose a conditional sanction in this case. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AGK [•] 23:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given the current block on PMA is not indef, the conditional here isn't suitable. Courcelles 22:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Pmanderson restricted (2)

2.2) Pmanderson is indefinitely prohibited from engaging in discussions and edits relating to the Manual of Style or policy about article titles.

Support:

Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AGK [•] 23:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PhilKnight (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, yes --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PMAnderson was a valuable editor in a number of ways, but he demonstrated over time that he did not always embody the sense of proportionality and balance that I refer to in my comment on finding 1. Therefore, if and when he returns to us, it makes sense that he focus on other matters. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Though, given the sockpuppetry, it would be my second choice to an unproposed ban. Courcelles 22:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Copy-edited to substitute "the Manual of Style or policy about article titles" for "the Manual of Style" per Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Proposed decision #Pmanderson. AGK [•] 00:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pmanderson banned

2.3) Pmanderson is indefinitely banned from English Wikipedia. After one year, he may appeal his ban to the Arbitration Committee, provided he is able to demonstrate to the Arbitration Committee that his history of disruptive conduct will not continue.

Support:

In addition to 2.2, the history here plus the socking make this necessary. In addition to his long series of disruption, 2.2 is, essentially, already in place as a community restriction, and this editor sockpuppeted to get around it. Courcelles 03:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can go along with this, although I doubt it's strictly necessary. Jclemens (talk) 03:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I agree with Newyorkbrad's comment below. PhilKnight (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I consider this to be overkill. AGK [•] 21:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary at this point, given that he's already blocked for a year. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Pmanderson is already blocked for a year and subject to a topic-ban upon his return. These are substantial sanctions for his transgressions and I would need some convincing as to why still further sanctions are necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with NYB on this. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would't be necessary if his block was indef, or if there was some formal one-strike policy on socking, (Or even if I thought for two seconds he would abide by the 2.2 restrictions, but his history of topic ban violations is long) but the remedy in 2.2 already exists in large part, and he has chosen to sockpuppet and flaunt it. Passing the same sanction the community did as a Committee action is close to worthless. Contra Elen, his history of disruption goes back years and years, and there's no reason to think when the block wears off, or sooner given his willingness to sock, that the disruption won't keep right on happening. Instead of an indef, we could take over the one year block from the close of this case as a formal ban, rather than a block, for the purposes of dealing with possible sockpuppets. Courcelles 19:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus building at WT:TITLE

3) Interested parties are instructed to spend the next 21 days from the closure of the case to determine the phrasing of WP:TITLE to obtain consensus on the disputed passages. This may be the continuation of a current discussion or new thread. From that date, a period of five weeks is granted for the gathering of consensus on the issue. The discussion should be of sufficient structure to allow easy quantification of consensus rather than a large amount of poorly-framed debate. Parties are encouraged to focus edits on forming consensus rather than edits to the policy page itself.

Support:

Oppose:

Per the lack of votes here and the discussion on the talkpage, there appears to be a collective decision not to pursue this remedy. That does not, of course, mean that consensus-building would be a bad thing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this just isn't resonating with me either, but I'm not sure what to propose as an alternative. Jclemens (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

I'm not certain what relationship is intended between the 21-day period and the five-week period. Is the intent here that the former would be used to determine a consensus wording for an RFC, or the consensus wording of the final result? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The idea was to create two distinct periods--one, in which the proposed wording gets hashed out, and the second part to ratify it, as you intimated. Copyedits to make that clearer would be welcome. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I need to think some more about this: I'm not sure if we need to do more than ask the parties to do what they ought to have done anyway. Perhaps this might work, but I fear that, without a more meaningful remedy, we will have achieved nothing of substance in relation to this dispute... AGK [•] 23:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this will work as written. I have my doubts that the self-identified group can hash out anything.....--Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Topic bans

4.1) Should any party or editor involved in this case or TITLE discussions be found by an uninvolved administrator to be disrupting consensus building, that user may be temporarily banned from style-guide related pages, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. Continued patterns of violations may be result in an indefinite ban.

Support:

Oppose:

Prefer 4.2; I see no reason to develop unique variants of such restrictions at this stage. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was in the process of saying exactly the same as Kirill: I agree that it's better to make community enforcement as simple as possible. AGK [•] 23:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 4.2. PhilKnight (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In favor of 4.2 for the reasons stated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The standard discretionary sanctions aren't absolute, and we can invent new wording for cases where the standard doesn't quite work, but it does work here, and the idea of standardizing them is to make life easier on everyone. Courcelles 22:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Discretionary sanctions

4.2) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed.

Support:

Proposed. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AGK [•] 23:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PhilKnight (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This gives admins the power to warn users, and order them off the page if necessary. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to making it explicit that this includes the article-title policy, which I think is inherent anyway. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 22:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Copy-edited so that this includes WP:TITLE, which was not as apparent as we seem to think. However, can we drop the "broadly construed"? A wikilawyer might suggest that extends to any article that is subject to these policies and guidelines, and therefore that the sanctions are badly-written and need scrapping... Let us look at a more accurate formulation of wording. AGK [•] 11:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I gues e could make it explicit that it only applies in Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces... but I'm not sure it is a good idea, as MOS flare-ups can and do happen in Talk namespace, as well... Courcelles 22:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Born2cycle warned

5) Born2cycle is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors.

Support:

Proposed. In my view, remedial action is necessary in association with any conduct finding specific to an editor. I hope a simple warning that specifies what Born2cycle must improve upon will be sufficient. AGK [•] 00:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support the idea, but could we not put it in simpler English. "Born2cycle is warned to talk less and listen more, to actually think about the views of other editors, and to be prepared to compromise in order to reach an outcome that everyone will accept."--Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to copy-edit. AGK [•] 11:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support either as proposed or with Elen's simple translation. Jclemens (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer original over Elen's. Courcelles 22:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PhilKnight (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also prefer the original. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

As in FoF #4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

I think "advised" or "reminded" might be better than "warned" in this context. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.

Support:

Discretionary sanctions are self-enforcing, but a standard enforcement provision for the Pmanderson restriction is necessary. (Only if an applicable remedy passes.) AGK [•] 23:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PhilKnight (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
--Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 22:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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 to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 05:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC) by User:Newyorkbrad.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Editorial process	9	0	0		·
2	The Manual of Style	9	0	0		·
3	Policy and guidelines	9	0	0		·
4	Good faith and disruption	8	1	0		·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Manual of Style as unique style guide	9	0	0		·
2	Locus of dispute	9	0	0		·
3	Pmanderson (1)	9	0	0		·
3.1	Pmanderson (2)	8	0	0		·
3.2	Pmanderson (3)	8	0	0		·
4	Born2cycle	7	1	0		·
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1.1	All parties reminded (1)	2	4	0		·
1.2	All parties reminded (2)	9	0	0		·
2.1	Pmanderson restricted (1)	1	3	0		·
2.2	Pmanderson restricted (2)	8	0	0		·
2.3	Pmanderson banned	2	3	0		·
3	Consensus building at WT:TITLE	0	2	0		Cannot pass
4.1	Topic bans	0	5	0		Cannot pass
4.2	Discretionary sanctions	9	0	0		·
5	Born2cycle warned	6	1	0		·
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Enforcement by block	9	0	0		·

Notes

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

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. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support

I think we can close this case, now that Remedy 5 is passing. PhilKnight (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AGK [•] 20:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 06:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Responding to AGK below, I think we should continue to discuss whether our word and diff limits as currently enforced can have the effect of sometimes cutting off presentation of relevant evidence; however, we don't need to keep this case open to have the discussion as a general matter, and I don't think there is much appetite in any quarter for the idea of reopening the evidence phase in this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not our most useful decision ever, but, its what we have. Courcelles 19:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

~~Holding for 24 hours to see if there is any interest in the topic being discussed in Finding 4. AGK [•] 21:00, 21 March 2012~~

Comments