Revision as of 20:02, 18 December 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:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Request for injunction on page moves while the ArbCom case is in-process

One of the issues in this case is that certain users have been engaging in hundreds of non-consensus page moves. However, even after filing the ArbCom case, Yaksha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is continuing to engage in more non-consensus page moves, with no attempt at RM procedure for these articles, and in violation of WikiProject consensus that's already been reached as to how those articles should be named (see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Buffy/Episodes). I request that those moves be reverted, and that Yaksha be warned to stop engaging in controversial moves while the ArbCom case is in-process. Also, it is my plan to present evidence which points to the current state of certain categories, and if Yaksha (or anyone) is disrupting those categories, it will make it difficult and confusing to properly present my case. --Elonka 23:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Despite a polite request by Thatcher131 to avoid engaging in moves , Yaksha has indicated an intent to continue with moving pages, unless specifically blocked by an injunction: . --Elonka 01:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

(additional diff from Yaksha) "ArbCom doesn't mean we have to stop at all." --Elonka 01:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, you should stop quoting bits and pieces of someone's words and taking them out of context. Thatcher's comments on my talk page implied that i shouldn't move articles because there was a case pending. I said no, because having an ArbCom case going doesn't mean the world stops revolving. If an temporary injunction is needed, then the ArbCom will pass one. It's as simple as that. --`/aksha 02:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, even the Medcab mediator believed consensus was reached. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that an injunction against further moves outside of the RM process would be appropriate, but I fail to see how seeking the views of Misplaced Pages as a whole through the RM process is disruptive. I encourage the committee to reject this proposed injunction, but instead issue an injunction against television episode page moves outside of RM. Since the majority of editors do not believe that a formal move request is necessary for these articles, using RM is a considerable compromise, and would also be appropriate to gauge community feeling about such moves. I see no reason to paralyze a section of Misplaced Pages during this arbitration; the RM process, by its nature, is not disruptive. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Recent and ongoing move requests have shown that there is consensus to conform to the guideline. While Elonka continues to deny the existence of consensus against pre-disambiguation, there is clearly no consensus to change the guideline to support her view, so the guideline should stand. Allowing this injunction essentially endorses the use of ArbCom to subvert consensus and negate the application of a guideline just because there is not unanimous consent. Additionally, if the moves are deemed "controversial", I ask that any injunction at least allow for the moves to be continue through the normal WP:RM procedure. –  Anþony  talk  23:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Given the contentious nature of this case, and the fact it revolves around page names, it would be in the best interest of all if people just let it be until the end of this. I endorse this proposed injunction, as it will attempt to reduce conflict during this procedure. Daniel.Bryant 01:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, even the Medcab mediator believed consensus was reached. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, you can just point to past versions of articles if you want, instead of current ones. There's no need to stop moves just to make presenting evidence easier for you. You're claims are also misleading, as Anþony pointed out, there is clearly consensus for the moves. There is also no need to take every page move through a Request Move. Either way, even if a tempoerary injunction is passed to stop me from making moves, Request Moves is still open. With every past Request Move poll finishing at a 4:1 or 5:1 ratio (in favour of support), what makes you think any future Request Moves will proceed differently? Or are you going to ask for a tempoerary injunction to stop me from filing in Request Moves as well? --`/aksha 02:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Elonka has now attempted to use her proposal of a temporary injunction to dissuade closing admins using official-sounding language invoking ArbCom's name from closing move requests that have clear consensus. The RMs have followed all appropriate procedure and have been open for longer than the required 5 days. It should also be noted that the first of these move requests was proposed by Milo H Minderbinder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), not Yaksha, and so is not even covered by the proposed injunction. –  Anþony  talk  04:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - Personally I think such an injunction serves only to further the interests of one party at the expense of many others. I feel it would be disruptive and therefore I do not think it is feasible nor advisable. ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" 23:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for temporary injunction that all television episode moves must go through WP:RM until the arbitration is concluded

1) This is a modification of Elonka's proposed injunction above. I do not believe that proposing moves through WP:RM is disruptive. However, it may be appropriate to restrict moves outside of the WP:RM process during this arbitration. Most of the editors at WP:TV-NC believe that the prior established consensus for that guideline means that WP:RM should not be required for these moves, and Elonka and her supporters believe that it is disruptive to move these articles without proven consensus. Therefore, an appropriate compromise for the duration of this arbitration would be to have all such moves go through WP:RM. It is neither necessary nor appropriate to attempt to stall current move requests which appear to have gained consensus through the normal Misplaced Pages page moving processes .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is a good compromise. As Josiah pointed out, we can't have the entire page move portion of Misplaced Pages stopped for one person. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind this either. Request Moves takes a lot longer (5 days + entries get backloged), but it's better than nothing. However, this doesn't seem to be Elonka's interpretation. She has requested that Request Moves be stopped because of this Arb case . I find this to be very inappropriate, the ArbCom has yet to comment (let alone approve) of her proposed injunction. Those two Request Moves were also opened last week, before this case begun. And both of them have technically finished (been open for more than 5 days, we're just waiting for a closing admin now.) Her statement makes it sound like the ArbCom has already approved of her proposition, and that all moves including Request Moves are to be stopped by order of the ArbCom. --`/aksha 05:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Comment - Perhaps we should limit the scope of this to the articles in question? Right now there is significant scope creep in this proposal as it seems to include all TV episode articles on EN - which is simply unfeasible and unnecessary to restrict. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" 23:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe it would have to be limited specifically to articles regarding single TV episodes, where a move is used to move the article from "<name of episode> (<name of TV series>)" to just "<name of episode>". However, if the ArbCom considers this, i'd like them to keep in mind that a consensus in RM to move one episode article of a TV series basically means there will be consensus to move all the other episode articles in the same TV series. Putting 50+ articles at a time through Request Moves is messy, and it seems like closing admins tend to avoid them (one of the ongoing RM for only about 20 articles has been backlogged for several days now). --`/aksha 00:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Do you realize just how many single TV episode articles there are on the English Misplaced Pages? Such an overarching injunction puts an undue burden on the entire user population. I'm not saying it's unreasonable, per se, but it is unfeasible. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" 20:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, i was the one who went through them to compile the need-to-be-moved list =P. Well, i'm not exactly in support of an injunction at all. But if Elonka decides to push for it, i'd rather this than her earlier proposal. --`/aksha 23:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Request to place a "Disputed" notice at the top of Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (television)

1) Multiple disputants have indicated intent to continue moving articles, even while the ArbCom case is proceeding. A request for an injunction on these specific types of moves has not yet been responded to by the committee. In the meantime, it seems to me that it would make sense to at least place a "disputed" tag at the top of the guideline, since it is repeatedly being referred to by disputants as a "consensus guideline." Multiple attempts to add a dispute tag are just being reverted , to the point that the page has been protected multiple times . I request that ArbCom issue a ruling that the guideline should be marked as disputed, until the case is concluded. --Elonka 23:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It seems to me that placing a "disputed" tag on the guideline is roughly equivalent to admitting Elonka's claim that the guideline does not have consensus, which is presumably one of the subjects of this arbitration. If there is consensus for the guideline, then by definition it is not significantly disputed. A handful of people who disagree with a guideline do not constitute a dispute, no matter how vocal they are. Contrariwise, if there is a dispute, then there is not consensus. This is the very heart of the matter under debate.

Elonka is effectively asking for a verdict while the trial is still ongoing. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Just so we're perfectly clear, Elonka, do you consider the presence of a "disputed" tag on a guideline to mean that that guideline is suspended and that people shouldn't use it while the tag is present? --Milo H Minderbinder 23:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I mean for the tag to notify those who are reading the page, that elements of the guideline are in dispute. It can draw their attention to the talk page, or to the ArbCom proceeding, and anyone reading the guideline can then make up their own minds from there as to whether or not they wish to follow the guideline while the ArbCom proceeding is in-process. I believe that it is unprofessional to not have a tag on the page, since it implies that all elements of the guideline are non-controversial. As a compromise, I would be willing to accept a tag which flagged only the "episode titling" section as controversial, rather than marking the entire guideline. Or, just put wording directly into that section of the guideline, stating that the naming convention is controversial, and drawing people's attention to the talk page or ArbCom ruling. It doesn't have to be an official tag, but there does have to be some sort of notice there. --Elonka 23:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Elonka's clear intent is to add prejudicial language to the guideline supporting her view that the guideline does not have consensus support and is not in effect. When she has been (temporarily) successful in marking the guideline as disputed, she has used that tag subsequently as reason not to apply the guideline. If a vocal minority were sufficient to mark a guideline or policy disputed, most of them would require such a notice. Elonka and Matthew Fenton have been only people to push forcefully for the tag. A few more have acquiesced just to end the edit war, but there is clearly no consensus to add it. –  Anþony  talk  23:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There is NO dispute about the guideline itself. Our dispute isn't about changing the guideline, or about whether it's right or wrong. The disput is about how to use the guideline - mainly the issue of whether wikiprojects can have exceptions. And Elonka's insistence that the moves are causing wikipedia-wide havoc and disruption. It's almost funny how this thing turns out. Elonka adds the disputed tag, someone removes it, it gets added again, then removed...etc. Then a talk page section is created to argue about whether we want the tag. Then Elonka goes "look, there's OBVIOUSLY a dispute", pointing at the edit war on the guideline page and the argument on the talk page. When in actual fact, both of those things are the result of Elonka adding the tag in the first place. --`/aksha 01:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Guidelines and exceptions

1) Guidelines are recommendations which by definition, (and by WP:IAR), "not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed --`/aksha 12:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I like it. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Per my comment below, the key words here are common sense. Anyone wanting an exception should be prepared to have a very convincing, rational argument for it, and rigourously defend its continued use over time, to be able to go against guidelines that are the product of consensus in the wider Misplaced Pages. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Exceptions must be backed with reasoning

1) Guidelines should be treated with "common sense", especially when it comes to appying exceptions. Ignore All Rules also works on the premise that ignoring a rule will "improve wikipedia". These two principles therefore do NOT allow for exceptions that are not backed up by any reasoning.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed --`/aksha 12:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Definitely agree. IAR is not a loophole out of anything and everything. -- Ned Scott 21:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed. They must also be continually defended as still valid over time. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for exceptions

1) If something is wrong, then it's never too late to correct it. "That's the way it's always been" is not a valid reason for an exception.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed --`/aksha 12:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is an important principle in this case, and support it strongly. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

A very good point. -- Ned Scott 21:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed. Misplaced Pages is not paper. --BlueSquadronRaven 01:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

1) Consensus does not mean everyone must agree.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed --`/aksha 12:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There's some overlap with two principles below. These all need to be consolidated somehow IMHO. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly which two are you referring to? --`/aksha 11:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Stalling

1) Using stalling methods to drag on a dispute is disruptive

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed --`/aksha 12:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn. I'll re-propose this at the bottom with a better explaination of 'stalling'. --`/aksha 01:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

What do you mean by "stalling?" I'm not sure in what cases this principle would apply. Thanks, TheronJ 14:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

To me, "stalling" most applies here in that several good compromises and arguments were completely ignored in this case. Not agreed to, not refuted - simply treated as though they had never been uttered. I'll be adding a section to my evidence on this subject soon since it played a very big role in escalating tension and fueling incivility instead of quelling it. The latest example is the MedCab guy's ruling that consensus had been reached. There has been no acknowledgement of that fact. It's as though it never happened. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Perhaps you should clarify the wording here so it is obvious what the intended meaning of "stalling" is. WP:SNOW may be a good, and very applicable reference here. ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" 23:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProjects

1) WikiProjects do not have power, because all editors are free to join or leave a wikiproject at any time. Wikiprojects exist to help coordinate editors of similar interest, they do not have authority or ownership over articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed --`/aksha 12:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• I would clarify that WikiProjects do not have power by being a project alone, but can be a place where consensus building discussion can happen. In that sense, they are a tool rather than a "governing body". -- Ned Scott 09:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose - Misplaced Pages is built on consensus. The members of Wikiprojects do not have any less, or any more, value that of any other Wikipedian. ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" 23:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

umm...did you misread my proposal or am i misreading your comment? Because that's exactly what i'm saying - that Wikiprojects (and editors in them) on their own don't have any 'special' power over their articles. --`/aksha 01:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - The implication is that members of a Wikiproject are useless and the project itself is as well. This is a very abhorrent implication for Misplaced Pages, as it denies the fundamental basis of Misplaced Pages. ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" 17:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

They're not useless. As the proposed principal says, wikiproject exist to help coordinate editors. But in terms of authority, they are useless. Since when did a wikiproject ever have 'power' over articles? --`/aksha 23:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

How about one of these:

1. Wikiprojects exist to help coordinate editors of similar interest, not to claim authority or ownership over a group of articles
2. Wikiprojects exist to help coordinate editors of similar interest and must not violate WP:OWN
3. Using Wikiprojects to claim ownership of articles is a violation of WP:OWN
4. Using Wikiprojects to claim extra weight in disputes is a violation of WP:OWN

Any of those sound good? Am I on the right trail at least? —Wknight94 (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I like #1 best — it seems the most neutrally worded. The word "ownership" in #1 should be enough of an indication towards WP:OWN — if not, you could pipe it as "ownership". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I would go with #1 as well. -- Ned Scott 21:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

1. 1 has my support. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Ned's comment is the more appropriate. --BlueSquadronRaven 01:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Small consensus vs. large consensus

1) A consensus amoung a small group of editors can be over-ridden by a consensus amoung a larger group of editors (e.g. a wikipedia-wide consensus).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed --`/aksha 12:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This is also a key element in this dispute, and I support its inclusion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. I'd also like to add that one could see the same with small group vs small group or large group vs large group, because consensus can change. Just because one group came to a conclusion does not mean that is the end of it. In the case of small vs large, though, we should default to the large (e.g. Misplaced Pages-wide) and have the small take the burden of changing the consensus. The fact that the small is attempting to do this does not actually change consensus or create a lack of consensus. -- Ned Scott 07:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed, or there would be chaos. --BlueSquadronRaven 01:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Request Moves

1) Request Moves is a fair and open way to propose a potentially controversial move.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed --`/aksha 12:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Related to this, is WP:RM mandatory? That is, is it absolutely necessary to follow those procedures if consensus has already been determined using other methods or if the issues are substantially the same as a recently successful move request? –  Anþony  talk  04:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not. The Request Moves page itself instructs that not ALL moves *have* to be made through Request Moves. --`/aksha 10:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

An interesting question is the definition of "controversial". I can see someone using the existence of this ArbCom case as proof that every television episode article move is controversial. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In which case, put it through Requested Moves and let it flow. If there is a compelling argument it is not an impediment, and the results of the request can be used to uphold the move at a later time, if someone were to move it again without consensus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BlueSquadronRaven (talk • contribs) 12:04, 13 December 2006 UTC.

Guidelines and polling

1) By longstanding Misplaced Pages tradition, guidelines are established by discussion, not voting.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Supported. Polls are good a good indicator, but it's the discussions that establish the consensus and therefore the guidelines. --`/aksha 01:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The poll was just one form of feedback, and not the decision making process itself. -- Ned Scott 07:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Absolutely. Discussion with rational arguments should be the de facto standard for establishing consensus on a matter, not polls. --BlueSquadronRaven 00:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Polling and consensus

1) A poll may be used as a crude gauge of editor opinions, but does not by itself establish consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

If a poll is flawed, that is not an argument to hold another one.

1) As Misplaced Pages:Discuss, don't vote says, "If a poll was called on an issue recently, there is usually no reason to call a second poll, even if you think that consensus may have changed or that the first poll was conducted unfairly. If you disagree with the "majority" opinion, simply remember that the poll is not binding and continue discussions."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with this, TheronJ, as long as discussion took place afterwards. In this case, it did. Also, in this case, there was no proof that the first poll was flawed anyway. On the contrary, a canvass of people who voted with the majority resulted in several of those people affirming their position and none of those people agreeing that the poll was flawed. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This is true, but I think it's worth clarifying that even if the poll had been flawed, that would not be a reason to hold another one. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this principle. If a poll or survey is conducted, but it's an obvious mess, it's reasonable to scrap it and start over. Especially if multiple participants are calling for it to be restarted, and other participants are repeatedly referring to the results of the (bad) poll to reinforce their arguments. --Elonka 20:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

To be fair, I wrote that paragraph yesterday, with this specific dispute in mind. I think it's right, and it seems to have gotten acceptance from the editors active on DDV, but I would be interested in hearing other opinions. TheronJ 14:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops! I should have checked the history. Well, it's a fine and intelligent sentiment anyway. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, especially as polls are non-binding. If everyone's opinion has come out in discussions, there's no need. --BlueSquadronRaven 01:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion and consensus

1) In discussion, Misplaced Pages editors will propose, support, or reject arguments. When an editor's arguments gain little or no support, it is appropriate to say that they are unsupported by consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is unclear as currently written. If 6 editors argue "A", and 3 editors argue "B", I agree that there is clearly no concensus for "B". The trickier question is whether there is a consensus for "A". Which did you mean to imply? Thanks, TheronJ 14:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I meant to suggest that if 20 editors argue "A", 3 editors argue "B" and the arguments used by the supporters of "B" are clearly rejected as unsupported by either Misplaced Pages guidelines, practices, or logic, there is a consensus for "A". But I'm not sure how to say that in a way that doesn't seem like "majority rules". I'm trying to say that when there is both a supermajority and reason on one side, and a tiny minority using faulty arguments on the other, there's a consensus for the former. Any suggestions for improvements of wording are welcome. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The most relevant guideline is the "Consensus vs. supermajority" section of WP:CONSENSUS. I'm not sure which way it cuts in this case, though. TheronJ 19:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Obtaining consensus to move one page, does not imply consensus to move all pages in that subject area

1) If there is any controversy about a move, WP:RM procedures should be followed. If it is intended to move a group of pages, then all affected pages should be listed in the RM, and notices should be placed on the talk page of all articles to be affected, so that editors who are involved with those articles can be alerted to the discussion.--Elonka 18:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. The proposal is way too vague since "subject area" can be very small or very huge (i.e. 'science' is a subject area, then again, 'lost episodes' is also a subject area). --`/aksha 01:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I very much disagree with this. The idea here is that the same arguments and rationales would apply to each RM. There's no point in having the same discussion over and over again like that. -- Ned Scott 07:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Arbitrators should consider that this would allow a small minority, even a single person, to force a pointless and lengthy procedure for thousands of moves when the outcome for each is clear. Enforcing any changes to the naming conventions guidelines would become completely unmangeable. –  Anþony  talk  19:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

A majority does not mean a consensus

1) Misplaced Pages does not run by "majority rule", it runs by consensus, which is achieved by civil and good faith communication between interested editors. When there is significant opposition to a proposed course of action from multiple editors, even if those editors are in the "minority", consensus has not been achieved. --Elonka 18:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I might like to see this fleshed out. As is, it leaves every issue the opportunity to end up at ArbCom as long as a single editor alleges - not even proves but just alleges - bad faith. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not phrase it as "single editor". I phrased it as "significant opposition ... from multiple editors." --Elonka 20:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

True. The point I clumsily tried to make (too many sentence fragments in too many windows) was that there's no definition of "significant opposition". Three people could claim they are "significant opposition" - or even one person yelling really loud - even in the face of 25+ people clearly stating their opinion to the contrary. Who says what constitutes significant? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if a few or a lot are opposing, what matters is how rational their argument is. I don't think anyone disagrees with how Misplaced Pages is run. (at least in the context of this debate). -- Ned Scott 22:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is poorly worded. How many is "Multiple?" Two? Three? Twenty? What percentage of the minority? 1%? 2%? 15%? Can you imagine if two editors were able to force months-long disputes on items the rest of Misplaced Pages has taken for granted for years? Where is the line drawn between "No consensus" and "disruptive behaviour"? --BlueSquadronRaven 00:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It is reasonable for a WikiProject to create guidelines for the articles within its sphere of influence

1) A group of interested editors, such as with a WikiProject, may choose to create reasonable guidelines for the articles that they are dealing with, to provide for a consistent look and feel in those articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Elonka 20:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good - as long as their opinion is not given some undue weight because of their project membership. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"Consistent look" within reason. Generally, WikiProjects, just like any other group of editors, should follow the WP:MOS and so on. Also, WikiProjects should not look for reasons to be exempt, and the value of following consistent style guidelines wikipedia-wide should be emphasized. A WikiProject is free to make these suggestions, but such guidelines are not binding and can be reevaluated at any time (just like everything else). -- Ned Scott 22:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep. And if the guidelines appear to come into conflict with Misplaced Pages-wide guidelines, the members of a WikiProject should be able to explain why their particular set of articles benefit from an exception from general Misplaced Pages guidelines. If no such explanation is forthcoming (or the explanation is "because we like it this way"), the larger guideline should prevail, as it presumably reflects the views of a wider spectrum of Misplaced Pages editors. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Isn't Misplaced Pages as a whole one big project? Of course any group of editors may choose to create "reasonable guidelines" for a group of articles. But Misplaced Pages as a whole also creates "reasonable guidelines" for all wikipedia articles (things like the manuals of style, WP:D, naming conventions...etc.) Small consensus shouldn't have higher piority than a larger consensus. --`/aksha 01:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

What happens when an article is within the "sphere of influence" of multiple projects, and they have different guidelines? Thatcher131 23:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What happens to good-faith edits made by those outside of the WikiProject that aren't in keeping with guidelines? And is this to imply that WikiProjects can overrule established Misplaced Pages-wide guidelines if they agree upon it? This proposal seems in conflict with WP:OWN, except that it is the members of a Project, rather than an individual editor, that are claiming it as theirs. The Project should have to justify every exception granted them, and be prepared to continually defend it as valid over time. --BlueSquadronRaven 00:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This would appear to be a critical aspect of "coordinating a group of editors with similar interests" - the purpose of a wikiproject. Once a wikiproject has a standard which works for their project, they should consider proposing it as a guideline (possibly more generalised) for applicable parent/wider scope wikiprojects, MOS, naming conventions etc., or documenting the exception (with reasons) as appropriate. To answer Thatcher131 about conflict between projects: discussion and consensus may lead to modifications from both groups, or exceptions documented by either of them. This must happen all the time with wikiprojects focussed on types of geographic feature (such as mountains or rivers) overlapping with wikiprojects for countries or regions. --Scott Davis 03:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines are backed by consensus

1) Per Misplaced Pages:Guideline, a guideline represents the consensus recommendations of Misplaced Pages editors. If an element of a guideline does not represent consensus, it should either be removed, or notated as being controversial.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Elonka 20:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, this supports my removal of the Star Trek example from WP:TV-NC. -- Ned Scott 07:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Which, i must add, is what set this whole ordeal off. --`/aksha 14:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Per my comments under A majority does not mean a consensus above, how few editors out of the discussion constitute a lack of consensus? --BlueSquadronRaven 00:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines are not policies

1) Misplaced Pages guidelines are recommendations, and not policy. They are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Elonka 20:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This is now covered completely in the "Guidelines and exceptions" principle proposal above. Elonka, if you agree with this, you should sign a "support" there. Let's try and keep this as simple as we can. --`/aksha 01:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

How does this differ from #Guidelines and exceptions above? They seem to be saying the same thing (something I, and I think most Wikipedians, would agree with, by the way). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The key words above are common sense. Anyone wanting an exception should be prepared to have a very convincing, rational argument for it, and rigourously defend its continued use over time, to be able to go against guidelines that are the product of consensus in the wider Misplaced Pages. --BlueSquadronRaven 00:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

 Clerk note: Please do not strike out proposals that you did not write. Also, comments of others can be moved to the appropriate place but should not be deleted. Thatcher131 21:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I assumed before that Elonka somehow missed #Guidelines and exceptions, but in "un-withdrawing" it, she confirms that she feels the principles are distinct. In what ways are they different? Are you trying to stress that "guidelines are not policy"? It seems like a red herring. Following WP:IAR, even policy is subject to exceptions, if less frequently than guidelines. –  Anþony  talk  22:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Elonka wrote this proposal but Yakasha struck it out, which was improper, but no harm done. Having variations on a theme for the arbitrators to look at is not necessarily a problem. Thatcher131 23:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Elonka un-struck it herself, meaning she must be aware of the comparison to #Guidelines and exceptions but still feels this principle is necessary. I'm not opposed to working out the right phrasing, but the implication is that somehow the sentiment here is different. I'd still like to know what Elonka thinks that difference is. –  Anþony  talk  23:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for striking this one out. I'd assumed Elonka had simply missed my first proposal, so since the two are basically the same, i didn't think she'd mind. Anyhow, i'd also like to pose the question to Elonka now - how exactly is this different from my first principal proposal? --`/aksha 23:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It is reasonable to conduct a poll or survey when large numbers of editors are involved

1) When many editors are involved in a fast-moving discussion, it is reasonable to conduct a poll or survey to help gauge opinion. Though not intended as a binding vote, a survey provides a structured format such that all parties are clear on exactly what is being discussed, and ensures that all editors' voices are heard in an equal way. --Elonka 20:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Elonka 20:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This is another issue I don't think anyone actually disagrees on. The disagreement comes later on, on how significant or how vital a poll is. -- Ned Scott 22:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Ned here — I think we all agree on this. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

How large a number of editors? If not binding, it should not be insisted upon over consensus reached by discussion, per the above. --BlueSquadronRaven 01:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Stalling (2)

1) Stalling is disruptive. Stalling here means deliberately acting to length a dispute and/or stir up unneeded debate. This mainly refers to editors selectively ignoring compromises and sound arguments to create the illusion of there still being an 'active dispute'.

Per WP:SNOW, editors should not be "using wikipedia policies and guidelines as a filibuster", if something doesnt' have a 'snowball's chance in hell' of gaining consensus, there's no need to run it through all the process (e.g. polls, mediation, request moves).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed --`/aksha 01:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

In general, I agree with this. I'd say it would be ok if someone wanted to keep talking about an issue, but those editors should at least acknowledge that they are challenging the consensus not creating it or saying it doesn't exist. -- Ned Scott 07:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed. It should be grounds for a block, given suitable evidence. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Episodes of the same TV series

1) If a Request Move shows consensus to move one episode article of a certain TV series, then it's safe to say there is consensus to move all the other episode articles of the same TV series.

For example, This Request Move shows consensus to move Clash of the Turtle Titans (TMNT 2003 Episode) to just Clash of the Turtle Titans. It's therefore safe to say there would also be consensus to move all the other episode articles from the TMNT03 TV series given that they're being moved for the same reason (i.e. to remove unneeded disambiguation).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed --`/aksha 01:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC) - Withdrawn and re-proposed as per Anthony's suggestions below. --`/aksha 11:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Anthony, below. Informally, it certainly makes sense to say that the existing move requests show a pattern of support for the naming convention, and that further move requests are likely to have the same effect. From that, one can logically extrapolate that further move requests in compliance with that naming convention are unnecessary under WP:SNOW. However, I don't think that this wording is clear enough to be used as a "principle". Perhaps the underlying principle you're looking for here is: "If a series of move requests in compliance with a naming convention consistently yield the same result, it is reasonable to extrapolate that result into support for that naming convention." —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is too specific and too general at the same time. If there is consensus to move "Episode Alpha (Series)" to "Episode Alpha", that does not imply that there is consensus to move "Episode Beta (Series)" to "Puple Monkey Dishwasher". Try: Moving an article to comply with an established naming convention which has broad consensus support does not require a formal move request. –  Anþony  talk  03:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, i was specifically referring to moves of "<name of episode> (<name of TV series>)" --> "<name of episode>". But i guess you're right. I'll cross this one out and use your working for it. --`/aksha 11:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Purpose of the title

1) The purpose of the title of an article is not categorization, grouping, or to 'give context' to a topic.

The Category namespace on Misplaced Pages serves the purpose of categorizing similar articles (e.g. grouping together all episode articles of one TV series). The title of an article does not serve this purpose.

The first sentence of an article serves the purpose of giving context to a topic (e.g. "Dark Angel" is an TV episode from the TV series...etc). The title of an article does not need to serve this purpose.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed --`/aksha 01:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Support, although this seems so obvious to me that it's somewhat flabbergasting to think that Arbitrators would need to state it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed. It's so basic it shouldn't need to be here, but, that's been thought of a lot of Wiki's principals on style. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, I think. What is the purpose of a title? IMHO, it's to describe the material in the article accurately and uniquely. Given that context, a title might give context to an article. (Certainly, if I proposed to rename "Dark Angel (TV series)" to "0100100111" or "Dark Angel (second article on Misplaced Pages with that name)", that would present problems). TheronJ 20:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

A counterexample is Don Denkinger. Do you know who that is? If not, does that mean I need to call it Don Denkinger (umpire)? Don't know what an umpire is? How about Don Denkinger (baseball referee)? Don't know anything about sports so you don't know what a referee is? Now I'm at Don Denkinger (baseball game judicial person). Where does it end? WP:NC says to use the most common name for a subject. WP:D says to only use a disambiguating tag when an article title is ambiguous, meaning more than one subject share the same name. There's nothing ambiguous about "All the Best Cowboys Have Daddy Issues". WP:D says "A disambiguating word or phrase can be added in parentheses". It doesn't say "An explanatory word or phrase..." or "A decorative word or phrase..." or "A consistent word or phrase..." —Wknight94 (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to point readers to my comment here, when I pointed out,

The job of a Misplaced Pages article's title isn't to provide context for the article's subject: the article does that. Nor is it to categorize them: the category system does that. The job of the title is to provide a file name that's clear, accurate, and unambiguous. Just because most readers won't know the names of episodes of The Simpsons is not an argument for moving Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire to Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire (The Simpsons episode).

(See also the context of this comment. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternative forms

6) In cases where there are two or more acceptable form of spelling or title, disambiguation and redirects are used to assist the reader in finding articles on the subject. In instances where there is no clear basis for preference of one usage over another, an arbitrary decision may be made, for example, in the case of British versus American spelling the article created first determines the title.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

From the Highways case. Thatcher131 04:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Conscious responsible editing

7) Misplaced Pages editors and administrators are expected to notice when a conflict occurs between alternate forms and to use and accept an effective decision making process, arbitrary if necessary, which settles the conflict.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support this. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Support, with strong emphasis on the "an effective decision making process, arbitrary if necessary, which settles the conflict" part. --`/aksha 11:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

From the Highways case. Thatcher131 04:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely! --BlueSquadronRaven 19:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Use of parenthesis for disambiguation

8) Parentheses are frequently used for disambiguation on Misplaced Pages, Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation and Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) but their use is not a required method.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Fair enough. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

From the Highways case. Thatcher131 04:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Making arbitrary decisions

9) When an arbitrary decision is called for, it should be made by those users and administrators in a position to do so. Sometimes any decision is better than no decision.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Makes sense to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

From the Highways case. Thatcher131 04:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems unnecessary in this case. Eluchil404 09:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Accepting an arbitrary decision

10) When an arguably arbitrary decision has been made, unless there is a substantial basis for changing it, the decision should be accepted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed, in principle. I think in this case the dispute falls on whether there was a substantial basis for changing an arbitrary decision or not. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. There's no need to war over a decision that everyone admits was simply arbitrary. --`/aksha 11:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Elonka 02:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

From the Highways case. Thatcher131 04:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines not binding

11) Misplaced Pages:Guidelines, while recommended, are not binding, and may be varied from in appropriate circumstances.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Sure, as long as the "appropriate circumstances" can be explained to people who were not part of the decision to vary. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Something we all agree on. Good additional points by Josiah and BlueSquadronRaven. -- Ned Scott 21:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

From the Highways case. Thatcher131 04:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Key words again are "appropriate ciscumstances", which need to be rationally argued as applicable, and defended over time as being still applicable. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving articles to comply with naming conventions

1) Moving an article to comply with an established naming convention which has broad consensus support is not 'contraversial' and does not require a formal move request

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed --`/aksha 11:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Consensus does not mean lack of controversy. If there are objections, then a move should go through RM. --Elonka 02:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If there's enough objections to force a move through RM, then there's no consensus. If there is consensus, then one person complaining doesn't force a move through RM. --`/aksha 09:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. That's why we have guidelines, so we don't have to have the same discussion over and over. Almost anyone can stir up a debate, so a debate alone is not enough to debunk consensus. Of course, we should consider reasonable concerns, if present in a debate. -- Ned Scott 21:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed. It should be expected, as long as the reason and which guideline is being followed is in the edit summary. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Support - If it's a convention in WP:MOS, then it has vast community support and should be considered non-controversial. ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" 20:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I'm not sure what this principle is getting at. Sure, you can move any article you want (see WP:BOLD), but if someone reverts the move, you either need to work it out with that editor or take it to Misplaced Pages:Requested moves. TheronJ

To give this a little context - Elonka has insisted that any move of any TV episode article is not just controversial, but "disruptive" and has tried to block editors over making moves. She's disagreeing that we can be bold and move articles, and trying to make a blanket declaration that all episode moves are "controversial" and require RM. This point is merely saying that as RM says, it is not required for all moves, and editors can go ahead and make the moves with out having to go through the red tape of having to go through the RM process every single time (which would be disruptive). It's not saying that editors shouldn't be able to dispute moves, just that they shouldn't be able to somehow dispute all moves. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Try this hypothetical: I oppose all page moves. I think whoever named a page first knows best and all pages should stay where they are. By Elonka's apparent definition of controversial, I could force every page move to go through RM, even though my reasoning is unsupported and consensus is against me. Clearly, Misplaced Pages as a project wouldn't put up with that for very long. At some point, you have to make the decision that the minority view has been heard and properly considered, but ultimately rejected. Otherwise, we'd never do anything but argue about pointless things like TV episode naming conventions. –  Anþony  talk  01:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Move fraud

1) Making minor edits to redirects after page moves in an effort to win move wars is uncivil and disruptive and only serves to escalate move warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it escalates move warring, since the editing the redirects serves to prevent anyone without admin powers to move the article. Therefore freezing any move warring.

But i do agree it is uncivil, disruptive, unethical, and only helps to build up more tension against editors. --`/aksha 01:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I'd change the name of this point to something more NPOV than "move fraud" (maybe make it a short active sentence?) - the point itself is a good one though. Orderinchaos78 01:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"Move fraud" is a term that Thatcher131 (talk · contribs) pointed out - I think it came from a previous ArbCom proceeding. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Irrespective of its provenance, it's not a term that elevates the tone of the discussion.... How about "move locking" or something like that? Newyorkbrad 15:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom will use whatever term they want anyway so I'm not sure what the big deal is. Anyone is free to change it. Besides, I don't hear anyone involved saying that this term is inappropriate and, other than MatthewFenton's weak defense, I don't hear anyone denying that the "locking" was in bad faith. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I don't think it's really a NPOV issue, but it sounds funny. It makes it sound like a move was faked or something. I don't really care or anything, since it doesn't matter what we call it. -- Ned Scott 00:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Decisions on Misplaced Pages take time

Though in the case of minor or non-controversial situations, it is recommended to be bold and move forward with changes, controversies on Misplaced Pages can take time to resolve, especially when opinions are being solicited from multiple editors. Major decisions should allow time (weeks or sometimes months) to give infrequent editors a chance to participate.

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Elonka 19:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a long shot to make it into the final decision but good luck. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This and the three following sections (1 2 3 4) all seem to be trying to get at the same thing, but miss the point. Generally speaking, people would agree with such statements, but those issues were not a factor in this debate. -- Ned Scott 21:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose - Being bold says nothing about only being limited to minor or non-controversial situations. Infrequent editors should be listened to, and their opinions given weight, but Misplaced Pages shouldn't slow down for them. Anything changed can be changed back if the infrequent editors build consensus. --Brian Olsen 21:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - if we had to wait weeks or months to make changes that may be major or controversial, not only would nothing ever happen, but the section of the project would lose the interest of a considerable number of people involved. Orderinchaos78 01:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages editors are not expected to participate on an hourly or daily basis

The Misplaced Pages project is maintained by volunteer editors, who are often taking time out of otherwise busy schedules to participate. Very few editors check Misplaced Pages on an hourly basis, or even daily. An "active" editor is considered to be someone who makes over 100 edits per month. And even if an editor is participating more frequently, this does not mean that they are necessarily checking every item or talkpage on their watchlist each time they visit. Thus, if an editor does not participate in a discussion every day, it does not necessarily follow that they are "ignoring" the discussion -- it may just mean that they are working in other parts of Misplaced Pages at that time, or that they are giving thought to a reply before posting (a procedure that is actually recommended, in discussions that have become confrontational or emotional).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Elonka 19:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It's irrelevant. It's true no one's expected to be on wikipedia 24/7. But when someone manages to make a huge long reply on a daily basis arguing their points, but completely fails to respond to other people's comments, it's a sign they're deliberately ignoring them. --`/aksha 01:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed — this seems to be a straw man argument. No one is suggesting that anyone should participate on an hourly or daily basis. All that is being suggested is that when civil, good-faith questions are asked of a participant in a discussion, it is appropriate for that participant to respond to them rather than proceeding as if the comments had not been made. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The funny thing is that I've actually argued on behalf of editors who I disagreed with, because I respected their view and those editors were not available at the time. As long as we are respecting each other's views (within reason) this shouldn't be an issue. -- Ned Scott 07:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Not entirely applicable to this case. When an editor has time to repeat substantially the same argument as has been refuted previously, then they have time to address the concerns raised previously. Therefore, it does follow that they are ignoring valid criticism, which is not helpful for the purposes of the discussion or reaching consensus. –  Anþony  talk  21:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What, precisely, does how often an editor posts or how many edits hey make in a month have to do with naming conventions? Please clear up how this benefits the issue. --BlueSquadronRaven 08:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Haven't the three Requested Moves that have taken place been an opportunity for editors who don't post often, or want to take their time, to participate? They have all run at least a week, the third is still open at eight days and counting. I'd agree this is a straw man, especially since no evidence has been provided that anyone has complained that people weren't participating fast enough or often enough. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Editors who post frequently, do not have more say in a dispute than those who post less often

Just because one editor (or a group of editors) has more free time to spend on Misplaced Pages, and thus makes many more posts in a particular discussion, does not give their opinion more weight than the opinions of editors who are only able to participate once a week (or less).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Elonka 19:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone in this case has rejected an opinion or an argument simply because it was made by a less frequent editor. Opinions and arguments have been rejected because they were unsupported by Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Weak Oppose - Those who contribute more frequently and for longer periods of time usually have a much greater grasp of the fundamental principles of Misplaced Pages. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" 20:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Stating the same opinion multiple times in a discussion, without giving other editors a chance to respond, can be considered disruptive

One of the elements which has exacerbated the conflict in this case, is that a few editors have been posting and re-posting fundamentally the same opinion, and "pouncing" on any opposition to immediately disagree, often within minutes. This has contributed to page clutter and a rapidly-scrolling discussion. It has also had the effect of intimidating other editors from participating, both because of the attacks, and because of the difficulty of getting caught up on the existing conversation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Elonka 19:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Not only did we give time for others to respond, but we've clearly waited for such responses. This was not an issue in the dispute. -- Ned Scott 07:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Comment - Or it can be considered assertive. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" 20:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Are Misplaced Pages discussions supposed to adhere to a time-table? There's nothing wrong with posting a response "withing minutes". Responding critically to an argument is not an attack, no matter how fast it comes.

When someone puts forth the fundamentally the same argument which had previously been refuted with valid criticism, it is entirely appropriate to respond with fundamentally the same criticism. Arguably, repeating the argument without responding to the criticism is the disruptive act, leading to a rapidly scrolling and repetitive discussion. –  Anþony  talk  21:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is an environment where everyone contributes to the extent to which they have the ability, time, etc to do so - having such does not confer any more rights or ownership on the more active participant. However, if one wants to get involved in fast-moving, active discussions on a site with a million plus users and many thousands active at any one time, one can't really expect the site to wait for less active contributors. People who wish to express an opinion on any part of a discussion are free to do so, or can state their agreement with other editors or points of view so that their voice can, in effect, be counted by default as consensus is being reached. Orderinchaos78 01:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ludicrous. We're supposed to wait half an hour afterwards to respond now, or some such? And, may I remind, people on both sides of the debate have "been posting and re-posting fundamentally the same opinion". --BlueSquadronRaven 08:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary decision

1) As an arguably arbitrary decision without a substantial basis for changing it, the Television Naming Convention guideline should be accepted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, applying the Highway case ruling. –  Anþony  talk  21:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn, not a principle. –  Anþony  talk  22:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Polls should be avoided

1) As Misplaced Pages is not an experiment in Democracy, voting in and of itself should be avoided. Majority does not rule on Misplaced Pages, consensus does. However, there are some other fundamental points why polling should be avoided, explained in Polling is evil:

• Polling discourages consensus
• Polling encourages false dichotomy
• Polling encourages groupthink
• Polling isn't fair, either
• Polls are misleading and encourage confusion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'm not sure what context this is in. In general, we should avoid polls, but polls are not always bad. Is this talking about the first poll, or Elonka's request for a second poll, or both? -- Ned Scott 00:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" 18:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is a principle rather than a finding of fact. –  Anþony  talk  20:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i think facts have to actually be "what happened". So they're specific to this case. What you're proposing are general principals which we should be following. --`/aksha 01:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Moved. ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" 19:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is Preferred over Majority

1) According to the First Pillar of Misplaced Pages, wikipedia is not an experiment in Democracy. It is not ruled by sheer majority rule, but rather by consensus. From WP:VOTE:

Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, and according to the following meta-wiki essay: polling is evil. Decisions should be made by consensus decision making rather than a strict majority rule. However, on occasion it is useful to take a survey of opinions on some issue, as an indication of which options have the most support. Surveys should never be thought of as binding. (emphasis mine)