Case clerk: AlexandrDmitri ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: David Fuchs ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
For this case there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
---|---|
0 | 6 |
1–2 | 5 |
3–4 | 4 |
If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.
Under no circumstances may this page be edited, except by members of the Arbitration Committee or the case Clerks. Please submit comment on the proposed decision to the
talk page.
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.
1) {text of proposed motion}
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.
1) {text of proposed orders}
1) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.
2) Style guides are used as a means of creating a consistent end result. They do not affect content, but rather how that content is presented. The English Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MoS) is a guideline, or a set of "best practices" supported by consensus. The MoS is not a collection of hard rules.
3) A higher standard for participation and consensus exists for changes to policies and guidelines, as stated in Wikipedia:Consensus#Level of consensus.
4) Behavior that violates Wikipedia's policies, even if driven by good intentions, is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.
1) The English Wikipedia Manual of Style has been built from a number of pre-existing Manuals from numerous fields. The best practices from these have been combined to create a single, unique MOS that applies to articles on the English Wikipedia.
2) This dispute concerns contentious edits to the MoS and article naming pages that have been occurring sporadically for years. The incident that precipitated this arbitration case was a rapid series of edits at WP:TITLE.
3) Pmanderson ( talk · contribs) disrupted MoS-related discussions through JCScaliger ( talk · contribs), a sockpuppet and named party to this case.
3.1) Pmanderson ( talk · contribs) is currently under a one-year ban from the MOS placed by the Community, which the JCScaliger account was used to circumvent.
3.2) Pmanderson ( talk · contribs) has an extensive block log, with blocks for issues including edit warring, move warring, violations of topic bans, disruptive editing, and personal attacks.
4) Born2cycle ( talk · contribs)'s editing on the disputed pages and related subjects has hampered efforts at resolution, specifically by excessive responses and not following the spirit of WP:BRD.
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.
1.1) All parties are reminded to avoid personalizing Manual of Style disputes, and to work collegiately towards a workable consensus. In particular, a rapid cycle of editing the pages to reflect one's viewpoint, then discussing the changes is disruptive and should be avoided: carefully consider edits to MoS pages and to explain all changes promptly on the talk page.
1.2) All parties are reminded to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style, the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE'), and similar policy and guideline pages, and to work collegiately towards a workable consensus. In particular, a rapid cycle of editing these pages to reflect one's viewpoint, then discussing the changes is disruptive and should be avoided. Instead, parties are encouraged to establish consensus on the talk page first, and then make the changes.
2.1) If Pmanderson's blocks expire, he is prohibited from engaging in discussions and edits relating to the Manual of Style indefinitely.
2.2) Pmanderson is indefinitely prohibited from engaging in discussions and edits relating to the Manual of Style or policy about article titles.
2.3) Pmanderson is indefinitely banned from English Wikipedia. After one year, he may appeal his ban to the Arbitration Committee, provided he is able to demonstrate to the Arbitration Committee that his history of disruptive conduct will not continue.
3) Interested parties are instructed to spend the next 21 days from the closure of the case to determine the phrasing of WP:TITLE to obtain consensus on the disputed passages. This may be the continuation of a current discussion or new thread. From that date, a period of five weeks is granted for the gathering of consensus on the issue. The discussion should be of sufficient structure to allow easy quantification of consensus rather than a large amount of poorly-framed debate. Parties are encouraged to focus edits on forming consensus rather than edits to the policy page itself.
4.1) Should any party or editor involved in this case or TITLE discussions be found by an uninvolved administrator to be disrupting consensus building, that user may be temporarily banned from style-guide related pages, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. Continued patterns of violations may be result in an indefinite ban.
4.2) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed.
5) Born2cycle is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors.
1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.
Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.
These notes were last updated by Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 12:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 08:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC) by User:WOSlinker.
Proposed Principles | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number | Proposal Name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
1 | Editorial process | 9 | 0 | 0 | · | ||
2 | The Manual of Style | 9 | 0 | 0 | · | ||
3 | Policy and guidelines | 9 | 0 | 0 | · | ||
4 | Good faith and disruption | 8 | 1 | 0 | · | ||
Proposed Findings of Fact | |||||||
Number | Proposal Name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
1 | Manual of Style as unique style guide | 9 | 0 | 0 | · | ||
2 | Locus of dispute | 9 | 0 | 0 | · | ||
3 | Pmanderson (1) | 9 | 0 | 0 | · | ||
3.1 | Pmanderson (2) | 8 | 0 | 0 | · | ||
3.2 | Pmanderson (3) | 8 | 0 | 0 | · | ||
4 | Born2cycle | 7 | 1 | 0 | · | ||
Proposed Remedies | |||||||
Number | Proposal Name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
1.1 | All parties reminded (1) | 2 | 4 | 0 | · | ||
1.2 | All parties reminded (2) | 9 | 0 | 0 | · | ||
2.1 | Pmanderson restricted (1) | 1 | 3 | 0 | · | ||
2.2 | Pmanderson restricted (2) | 8 | 0 | 0 | · | ||
2.3 | Pmanderson banned | 2 | 3 | 0 | · | ||
3 | Consensus building at WT:TITLE | 0 | 2 | 0 | Cannot pass | ||
4.1 | Topic bans | 0 | 5 | 0 | Cannot pass | ||
4.2 | Discretionary sanctions | 9 | 0 | 0 | · | ||
5 | Born2cycle warned | 6 | 1 | 0 | · | ||
Proposed Enforcement Provisions | |||||||
Number | Proposal Name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
1 | Enforcement by block | 9 | 0 | 0 | · |
Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.
Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.
Case clerk: AlexandrDmitri ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: David Fuchs ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
For this case there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
---|---|
0 | 6 |
1–2 | 5 |
3–4 | 4 |
If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.
Under no circumstances may this page be edited, except by members of the Arbitration Committee or the case Clerks. Please submit comment on the proposed decision to the
talk page.
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.
1) {text of proposed motion}
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.
1) {text of proposed orders}
1) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.
2) Style guides are used as a means of creating a consistent end result. They do not affect content, but rather how that content is presented. The English Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MoS) is a guideline, or a set of "best practices" supported by consensus. The MoS is not a collection of hard rules.
3) A higher standard for participation and consensus exists for changes to policies and guidelines, as stated in Wikipedia:Consensus#Level of consensus.
4) Behavior that violates Wikipedia's policies, even if driven by good intentions, is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.
1) The English Wikipedia Manual of Style has been built from a number of pre-existing Manuals from numerous fields. The best practices from these have been combined to create a single, unique MOS that applies to articles on the English Wikipedia.
2) This dispute concerns contentious edits to the MoS and article naming pages that have been occurring sporadically for years. The incident that precipitated this arbitration case was a rapid series of edits at WP:TITLE.
3) Pmanderson ( talk · contribs) disrupted MoS-related discussions through JCScaliger ( talk · contribs), a sockpuppet and named party to this case.
3.1) Pmanderson ( talk · contribs) is currently under a one-year ban from the MOS placed by the Community, which the JCScaliger account was used to circumvent.
3.2) Pmanderson ( talk · contribs) has an extensive block log, with blocks for issues including edit warring, move warring, violations of topic bans, disruptive editing, and personal attacks.
4) Born2cycle ( talk · contribs)'s editing on the disputed pages and related subjects has hampered efforts at resolution, specifically by excessive responses and not following the spirit of WP:BRD.
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.
1.1) All parties are reminded to avoid personalizing Manual of Style disputes, and to work collegiately towards a workable consensus. In particular, a rapid cycle of editing the pages to reflect one's viewpoint, then discussing the changes is disruptive and should be avoided: carefully consider edits to MoS pages and to explain all changes promptly on the talk page.
1.2) All parties are reminded to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style, the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE'), and similar policy and guideline pages, and to work collegiately towards a workable consensus. In particular, a rapid cycle of editing these pages to reflect one's viewpoint, then discussing the changes is disruptive and should be avoided. Instead, parties are encouraged to establish consensus on the talk page first, and then make the changes.
2.1) If Pmanderson's blocks expire, he is prohibited from engaging in discussions and edits relating to the Manual of Style indefinitely.
2.2) Pmanderson is indefinitely prohibited from engaging in discussions and edits relating to the Manual of Style or policy about article titles.
2.3) Pmanderson is indefinitely banned from English Wikipedia. After one year, he may appeal his ban to the Arbitration Committee, provided he is able to demonstrate to the Arbitration Committee that his history of disruptive conduct will not continue.
3) Interested parties are instructed to spend the next 21 days from the closure of the case to determine the phrasing of WP:TITLE to obtain consensus on the disputed passages. This may be the continuation of a current discussion or new thread. From that date, a period of five weeks is granted for the gathering of consensus on the issue. The discussion should be of sufficient structure to allow easy quantification of consensus rather than a large amount of poorly-framed debate. Parties are encouraged to focus edits on forming consensus rather than edits to the policy page itself.
4.1) Should any party or editor involved in this case or TITLE discussions be found by an uninvolved administrator to be disrupting consensus building, that user may be temporarily banned from style-guide related pages, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. Continued patterns of violations may be result in an indefinite ban.
4.2) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed.
5) Born2cycle is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors.
1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.
Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.
These notes were last updated by Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 12:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 08:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC) by User:WOSlinker.
Proposed Principles | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number | Proposal Name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
1 | Editorial process | 9 | 0 | 0 | · | ||
2 | The Manual of Style | 9 | 0 | 0 | · | ||
3 | Policy and guidelines | 9 | 0 | 0 | · | ||
4 | Good faith and disruption | 8 | 1 | 0 | · | ||
Proposed Findings of Fact | |||||||
Number | Proposal Name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
1 | Manual of Style as unique style guide | 9 | 0 | 0 | · | ||
2 | Locus of dispute | 9 | 0 | 0 | · | ||
3 | Pmanderson (1) | 9 | 0 | 0 | · | ||
3.1 | Pmanderson (2) | 8 | 0 | 0 | · | ||
3.2 | Pmanderson (3) | 8 | 0 | 0 | · | ||
4 | Born2cycle | 7 | 1 | 0 | · | ||
Proposed Remedies | |||||||
Number | Proposal Name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
1.1 | All parties reminded (1) | 2 | 4 | 0 | · | ||
1.2 | All parties reminded (2) | 9 | 0 | 0 | · | ||
2.1 | Pmanderson restricted (1) | 1 | 3 | 0 | · | ||
2.2 | Pmanderson restricted (2) | 8 | 0 | 0 | · | ||
2.3 | Pmanderson banned | 2 | 3 | 0 | · | ||
3 | Consensus building at WT:TITLE | 0 | 2 | 0 | Cannot pass | ||
4.1 | Topic bans | 0 | 5 | 0 | Cannot pass | ||
4.2 | Discretionary sanctions | 9 | 0 | 0 | · | ||
5 | Born2cycle warned | 6 | 1 | 0 | · | ||
Proposed Enforcement Provisions | |||||||
Number | Proposal Name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
1 | Enforcement by block | 9 | 0 | 0 | · |
Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.
Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.