→Fait accompli: support |
|||
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
::Oppose - while it is a good idea, I'm too involved in the Doctor Who WikiProject that it would effectively stop my editing entirely - in fact, just before this case was opened, I've been collaborating with [[User:David Fuchs|another editor]] to get a set of episode articles to GA. Also support a wording that doesn't cut off the valid creation of Torchwood, Lost, or Simpsons episodes. '''[[User:Sceptre|Will]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])</sup> 02:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC) |
::Oppose - while it is a good idea, I'm too involved in the Doctor Who WikiProject that it would effectively stop my editing entirely - in fact, just before this case was opened, I've been collaborating with [[User:David Fuchs|another editor]] to get a set of episode articles to GA. Also support a wording that doesn't cut off the valid creation of Torchwood, Lost, or Simpsons episodes. '''[[User:Sceptre|Will]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])</sup> 02:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC) |
||
::Oppose - just try sourcing what is still around and work from there. They want sourcing so let's get some cheers, [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 02:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC) |
::Oppose - just try sourcing what is still around and work from there. They want sourcing so let's get some cheers, [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 02:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC) |
||
::'''Oppose''' obviously. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 03:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Comment by others:''' |
:'''Comment by others:''' |
||
::Oppose per Sceptre. -- [[User:Scorpion0422|Scorpion]]<sup>[[user talk:Scorpion0422|0422]]</sup> 02:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC) |
::Oppose per Sceptre. -- [[User:Scorpion0422|Scorpion]]<sup>[[user talk:Scorpion0422|0422]]</sup> 02:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:22, 20 January 2008
This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.
Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.
Motions and requests by the parties
Truce
1) The involved parties must cease all AFD nominations as well as all redirecting of televison episode articles and character articles while the arbitration case is ongoing.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed. --Pixelface (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- PF - aside from this arbitration, if you concentrate on getting third party refs as requested by TTN etc. this will be most productive. Then, if deletions continue despite sourcing this can be taken further. If you have already done this let me know - I saw the one Peewee episode. Did you want to resurrect that now? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Certainly people need to be more flexible and relaxed about these issues, since there's so much heat right now, but we don't need to come to a total halt. -- Ned Scott 03:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Proposed. --Pixelface (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Truce
1.1) All involved parties must cease editing episode articles as well as character articles while the arbitration case is ongoing.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed. Less one-sided version of 1). --Pixelface (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - while it is a good idea, I'm too involved in the Doctor Who WikiProject that it would effectively stop my editing entirely - in fact, just before this case was opened, I've been collaborating with another editor to get a set of episode articles to GA. Also support a wording that doesn't cut off the valid creation of Torchwood, Lost, or Simpsons episodes. Will (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - just try sourcing what is still around and work from there. They want sourcing so let's get some cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose obviously. -- Ned Scott 03:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Temporary Halt to Activities
3) Involved editors will avoid performing the actions under contention of this RfA (tagging for notability, merge proposals, redirection for merging, undoing such actions, and nominating articles for deletion) for television-related articles during this process; though they may continue to participate in any other acceptable form of editing and involvement. Involved parties are discouraged from creating new television-related articles during this process.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Support. --Pixelface (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support, though the only creations I can possibly see right now due to the the WGA strike are actually Torchwood, Lost, and The Simpsons (and all three are covered by non-parties) Will (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not to accuse or expect this from anyone, but this is to prevent one of those involved from creating more episode articles to deal with after this is over while there's a moratorium on deleting or merging them. --MASEM 02:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Proposed temporary injunctions
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
4)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Questions to the parties
Proposed final decision
Proposals by John254
Proposed Principles
Extreme edit warring
1) Massive edit warring over a large number of articles is highly disruptive, and may result in an extended site ban.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed. John254 23:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Extreme edit warring
1.1) Massive edit warring over a large number of articles, with limited or no discussion, is highly disruptive.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. Less harsh version of 1. Wizardman 02:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Proposed findings of fact
TTN
1) TTN has engaged in massive edit warring over a large number of articles. John254 23:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed, per my evidence. John254 23:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Pixelface
2) Pixelface has engaged in massive edit warring over a large number of articles.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. These two seem to be among the worst offenders. Wizardman 02:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
TTN Banned
1) TTN is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed, per the extreme edit warring principle and the TTN finding. John254 00:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - one-sided. Will (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- This proposed remedy does not preclude the issuance of remedies against other users involved in the edit warring. However, as TTN appears to have edit warred far more extensively than any other user involved in this case, a severe sanction is justified. John254 00:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Proposals by Kirill Lokshin
Proposed Principles
Fait accompli
1) Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Our failure to pass this the last time around has apparently resulted in an unclear message. Kirill 03:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposals by User:Z
Proposed Principles
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
General discussion
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others: