Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all proposed

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.
  • Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if they so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

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.

On this case, 1 Arbitrators is recused and 5 are inactive, so 5 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

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]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Courtesy[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 17:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 21:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 21:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Consensus required for guidelines[edit]

2) Guidelines are a product of community consensus, see Wikipedia:How_to_create_policy#Guidelines_for_creating_policies_and_guidelines and Wikipedia:Consensus

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 17:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 21:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 21:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Rejected proposals[edit]

3) If, after a reasonable amount of discussion, it becomes clear that there is considerable opposition to a policy proposal, active discussion of it may be abandoned and it may be marked with Template:Rejected.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 17:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 21:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 21:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Revival of rejected proposals[edit]

4) Discussion may continue regarding rejected proposals and, if support develops for them, they may be revived. However, while such discussion continues, their status as a rejected proposal should be maintained. Polls would be appropriate only if substantial interest in the proposal developed and a significant number of users were engaged in the conversation regarding the proposal.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 17:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 21:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 21:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Community custom and practice[edit]

5) Wikipedia customs and common practices are, in proper circumstances, policy, Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy#Rules.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 17:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 21:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 21:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Polls and voting[edit]

6) Straw polls and voting are used in a number of situations. There is a tradition which discourages excessive voting, but no actual policy. Polls may be used when appropriate to gauge opinion.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 17:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 21:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 21:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Arbitration committee[edit]

7) The Arbitration committee may determine the meaning and status of policy as it relates to particular disputes.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 17:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It tends to do this by explaining or clarifying its principles and substantive decisions by reference to policy and guideline pages; this is surely not the making of policy as such, but a commentary on its enforcement. Charles Matthews 21:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 21:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Fresheneesz edits policy disruptively[edit]

1) Fresheneesz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits policy-related pages frequently by engaging in edit wars on project pages and in incivility on talk pages. He treats Wikipedia as a battleground, and is therefore a disruptive editor of policy, guideline, and essay pages and their talk pages. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Non-Notability/Evidence#Fresheneesz_is_disruptive_on_policy_pages.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 17:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 21:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 21:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Fresheneesz fundamentally misunderstands Wikipedia policy and practice[edit]

2) Fresheneesz has shown by his comments that he fundamentally misunderstands how Wikipedia treats policy, and how it is created. He has stated that guidelines need not be reflections of common practice [1] [2], and that Wikipedia resolves discussions through the use of voting.[3] [4].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 17:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 21:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 21:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Fresheneesz is uncivil[edit]

3) Fresheneesz interactions with others regarding policy-related pages has frequently been uncivil and hostile. See Fresheneesz refers to others' edits as vandalism, Fresheneesz engaged in harassment, and Fresheneesz has been warned many times about edit warring and incivility.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 17:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 21:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 21:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Removal of poll by administrators exacerbated the dispute[edit]

4) The removal of the straw-poll from the talk page of Wikipedia:Non-notability by Radiant and Doc Glasgow increased the intensity of the dispute rather than cooled it down, something that could have been anticipated by these experienced administrators.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 17:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 21:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 21:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion of notability[edit]

5) Notability as a criterion for inclusion has been discussed at Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments, Wikipedia:Notability_proposal, Wikipedia:Non-notability, Wikipedia:Notability, and their talk pages. See also User:Uncle G/On notability.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Going back even further we should reference Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance as one of the foundational debates of this issue. SimonP 17:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Often debated; but the debates have never achieved closure, for the general points and issues. At most certain topic areas have been clarified. Charles Matthews 21:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 21:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Wikipedia:Non-notability[edit]

6) Wikipedia:Non-notability clearly failed to achieve consensus and was appropriated tagged "Rejected,", see Wikipedia_talk:Non-notability.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 17:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 21:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 21:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Fresheneesz[edit]

7) Fresheneesz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) failed to recognize or accept the failure of Wikipedia:Non-notability to achieve consensus. Following the recognition by other participants that the proposal had been rejected, he continued to vigorously agitate for it, going so far as to edit war over placement of Template:Rejected on the page and initiate a straw poll regarding the rejected policy.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 17:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 21:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 21:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Wikipedia:Notability[edit]

8) Wikipedia:Notability is a restatement of existing practice, see edit by Radiant! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) adding Template:guideline, edit by Centrx, and also Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy#Rules.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. It has been an accepted policy on AFD for some time, but AFD is a very limited and quite distinct community from the Wikipedia whole. The larger community has consistently rejected such policies. SimonP 17:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 21:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I am also unsure about its acceptance among the editor and admin community as a whole. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. AfD in effect has controlled the 'notability' issue, giving an operational definition. While plenty of support exists for the proposition that AfD is a bad general solution, and particular topic areas have suffered, I'm not aware of any great progress. The main practical step has been to have more speedy and PROD deletions, to take the pressure off AfD. Unfortunately CSD A7 ('no assertion of notability') has become a deletionist charter to act unilaterally; and IMX the same can be said about PROD. So I doubt 'existing practice' is a sound concept, absent some advance. Charles Matthews 21:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote[edit]

9) Wikipedia:Polls are evil, copied from m:Polling is evil by Radiant! on January 20, 2006, has been moved to Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote. Radiant! has maintained that it is a guideline [5]. Others have maintained it is an essay [6].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 17:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 21:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 21:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Doc glasgow[edit]

10) Doc glasgow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) actions, while a bit aggressive, violated no substantial policy.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 17:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 21:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 21:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Radiant![edit]

11) Radiant! (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) actions, while aggressive, violated no policy.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 17:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 21:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 21:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {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.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Fresheneesz[edit]

1) Fresheneesz may be placed on probation if he continues to disrupt policy pages. Such action shall be by a successful motion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Motions_in_prior_cases by any member of the Arbitration Committee after complaints received from one or more users.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 17:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 21:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 21:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

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.

The majority being 5, as of 22:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC) all pass except 8) Wikipedia:Notability. Thatcher131

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.

  1. Move to close. All agreed except one where we will not. Charles Matthews 08:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close. Jayjg (talk) 04:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close. - SimonP 15:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close ➥the Epopt 21:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Close Fred Bauder 22:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Non-Notability/Proposed_decision&oldid=1037733745"