Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 12 active Arbitrators (excluding two who are recused), so seven votes are a majority.

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

Proposed motions[edit]

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[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

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[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Support:
  1. Kirill 00:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. bainer (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I wish we could take a harder stance on this, but that would likely just make a mess. Deskana (talk) 12:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Wizardman 02:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Conduct and decorum[edit]

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Support:
  1. Kirill 00:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Although we have found no misconduct rising to the level of requiring an ArbCom sanction in this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. bainer (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Deskana (talk) 12:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Wizardman 02:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Wikipedia editorial process[edit]

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus 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 certain narrow exceptions.

Support:
  1. Kirill 00:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. bainer (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Disruptive page moves are more problematic than reverting on articles.FloNight♥♥♥ 21:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Deskana (talk) 12:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Wizardman 02:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Naming conventions[edit]

4) Wikipedia:Naming conventions, a longstanding policy, provides that:

Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
This is justified by the following principle: The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.
Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.

Support:
  1. Kirill 00:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. bainer (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Deskana (talk) 12:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. With the caveat that this is a general rule, and ambiguities or imprecision with the more common name may make selecting a formal name from a recognized entities a better long-term solution in some cases. — Coren (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Wizardman 02:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Purpose and role of the Arbitration Committee[edit]

5) The occurrence of protracted, apparently insoluble disputes—whether they involve conduct, content, or policy—is contrary to the purposes of the project and damaging to its health. The chief purpose of the Arbitration Committee is to protect the project from the disruption caused by such disputes, and it has the authority to issue binding resolutions in keeping with that purpose.

The Committee has traditionally concentrated its attention on conduct disputes, and has avoided issuing binding rulings that would directly resolve matters of content or policy, leaving those questions to the community at large. However, in cases where the community has proven unable to resolve those questions using the methods normally available to it, and where the lack of resolution results in unacceptable disruption to the project, the Committee may impose an exceptional method for reaching a decision.

Support:
  1. Kirill 00:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There is a distinction to be drawn between the Arbitration Committee resolving a content dispute ourselves, which we will not do, and taking steps to ensure that the dispute gets resolved by the community in a way that will hopefully minimize ongoing rancor regarding the fairness of the decision procedure. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. bainer (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yes, ArbCom has a role in setting up a process to settle a content dispute, and this is not making a content decision. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Deskana (talk) 12:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Wizardman 02:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

6) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Locus and state of dispute[edit]

1) The dispute concerns the appropriate titles for the article or articles concerning the country of Ireland and the island of Ireland; the ambiguity that exists because the designation "Ireland" is used in English to refer to both of these; and disagreements concerning recent page moves relating to these articles, including whether consensus was properly obtained for the moves, and the extent to which the current article titles conform with the requirement of maintaining a neutral point of view. The dispute has been ongoing since at least February 2007 with no apparent resolution.

Support:
  1. Kirill 00:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. bainer (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Concisely describes the issues at hand. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Deskana (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Wizardman 02:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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.

Community asked to develop a procedure[edit]

1) The community is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles. The purpose of this discussion shall be to develop reasonably agreed-upon procedures for resolving this issue, without further disputes or rancor as to the fairness of the procedures used. Editors are asked to approach this discussion with an open mind and without emphasis on prior discussions that failed to reach agreement.

Support:
  1. Kirill 00:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. bainer (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sending it back to the Community is for the best. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Deskana (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 02:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Wizardman 03:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Back-up procedure[edit]

2) If the discussion convened under the terms of Remedy #1 does not result in a reasonable degree of agreement on a procedure within 14 days, then the Arbitration Committee shall designate a panel of three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure.

Support:
  1. Kirill 00:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. bainer (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I agree that a time frame is needed, but 14 days might be slightly short for the time needed. But we can delay going to Remedy 2 if Remedy 1 seems to be close to being completed. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree with FloNight that we can leave the discussion open a bit longer if good progress is being made. But hopefully a couple of weeks will allow sufficient discussion of how to decide, so to speak. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. On the condition that we don't hold ourselves rigidly to the fourteen day limit, if a bit more time would be constructive. Deskana (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support and agree with FloNight and Deskana. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, with the provision that the committee is not obligated to appoint the panel immediately at the end of the 14 days if, in its opinion, discussion is progressing towards completion. — Coren (talk) 02:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Presuming that the 14 days is non-binding, though I entrust that they'll be able to manage that limit nonetheless. Wizardman 03:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

No moves pending discussion[edit]

3) Until the procedures discussed in Remedy #1 (and, if necessary, Remedy #2) are implemented, Ireland and related articles shall remain at their current locations. This does not constitute an endorsement of the current names.

Support:
  1. Kirill 00:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. bainer (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Needed to provide stability to content, and help editors focus on the new process. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Deskana (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support though I'd prefer adding a violation clause. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, although I agree with Fayssal that this provision would be better with an enforcement provision. — Coren (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Wizardman 03:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Binding resolution[edit]

4) Once the procedures discussed in Remedy #1 (and, if necessary, Remedy #2) are implemented, no further page moves discussions related to these articles shall be initiated for a period of 2 years.

Support:
  1. Kirill 00:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. bainer (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'm supporting this remedy, but if the Community agrees to a different binding time period than I would want to alter this remedy by an ArbCom motion. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per FloNight. Deskana (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I understand Coren's concern, though I think coming down hard should ward off any issues. Wizardman 03:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
This causes a dangerous precedent of immutability; I would support a remedy that stats that any page move discussion related to these articles shall utilize the same procedure established above. — Coren (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There must be a disincentive for delaying or disrupting this process. If there are to be an interminable number of future discussions, then there is every incentive to drag one's feet until one achieves the desired outcome by exhaustion, which is exactly how this case came about in the first place. --bainer (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern, Coren. But I agree with bainer that we need to do this. There is no perfect answer here. We are going to need to use the approach that gives the best outcome with the least harm. In each individual instance, the people moving the pages thought that they were doing it for a good reason. They did not see that their own actions were part of the problem. Two years is an arbitrary time period that allows for stability for these pages. As I said in my vote, if during the course of the consensus building discussion, the Community selects a different time period, or decides on a better way to get a stable solution, then the Committee can modify this part of our ruling. Does that make sense? FloNight♥♥♥ 15:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Abstain until I consider bainer's point further. I can see where that comes from but I'm still very wary of any process that makes a decision immutable for two years with no provision for changing situation. — Coren (talk) 05:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We can always revisit this later and have a motion to disenact the remedy if it is deemed to be unnecessary. --Deskana (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

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

  • I noticed that there are a few items that are considered to be on more flexible terms than their current wording; Arbitrators (and closing clerk) may wish to work out the fine details before closing the case. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 06:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Clerks, please wait at least 24 hours from the first close vote in order to give Coren a chance to consider whether he wants to change his vote. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote[edit]

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.


  1. Move to close with the original wording. We all seem to be on the same wavelengths so I see no need to re-write the proposals and re-vote. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close. --bainer (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close. The fact that the 14-day deadline is not etched in stone may be mentioned on the newly created discussion page, if appropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. A non-substantive 'hold on'. Coren and me would prefer to see a violation clause to "proposed remedies 3" added. Let's see if others agree. Otherwise, close it. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Close. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yes, let us close the first AC case of 09. Wizardman 02:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Close. What small reservations I might have left are definitely not worth delaying resolution. — Coren (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ireland_article_names/Proposed_decision&oldid=1142507121"