Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza/Proposed decision

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop 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 she/he 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, no Arbitrators are recused and 4 are inactive, so 6 votes are a majority.

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
 * For all items:

Motions and requests by the parties
Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions
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
1)

{text of proposed orders}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

=Proposed final decision=

Operational codenames
1) The use of operational codenames for battles or wars is discouraged by the guidelines developed at WikiProject_Military_history, "Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the battle took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other). It is better to use an appropriate geographical name for the article, creating a redirect from the operational name." Note that this refers explicitly to article titles, only implicitly to links to articles.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 17:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Though it is hard to gauge community consensus when we're citing a WikiProject guideline, and I would stress that we look at things on a case-by-case basis, this is still sound. Dmcdevit·t 02:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 14:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Deprecated' would be the accurate word. Charles Matthews 16:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Good advice, generally. Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Assume good faith
2) Assume good faith requires a user to extend good faith to other users on the basis that they are doing their best to improve Wikipedia.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 17:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 02:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 14:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 16:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Courtesy
3) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to other users and to avoid personal attacks. This requirement is especially relevant when there is conflict, see Civility and No personal attacks.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 17:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 02:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 14:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 16:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Framing a content dispute as a behavior dispute
4) Framing a dispute which, at bottom, is about content as a behavior dispute does not, however many behavior problems might exist, change its essential nature. It will be treated as a content dispute.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 17:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Doesn't seem right to me. Charles Matthews 16:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC) As with Charles.
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Where is this going? There would generally be no behavior problem (edit warring, incivility, etc.) if there were no content dispute, and no content dispute that wouldn't resolve itself if there were no behavior problem. Dmcdevit·t 02:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * According to you it goes in a circle Fred Bauder 03:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I for one think it does, at least in the vast majority of cases. Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Treated by whom? We certainly can't treat it as a content dispute, as that is ouside our mandate. - SimonP 14:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Facts on the ground
5) When a dispute arises efforts should be directed towards resolving the dispute by discussion, negotiation, if necessary, use of the dispute resolution procedures. It is counterproductive to attempt to create "facts on the ground" by making changes on a large number of articles or engaging in edit warring. Illegitimate means are no more effective than legitimate ones and create a great deal more disruption.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 17:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 02:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 14:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 16:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Disruption
6) It is commendable to identify a problem and initiate discussion regarding it; however, it is disruption to embark on an extensive and aggressive campaign to impose a solution. This includes campaigns of tagging either in articles or on the pages of those who oppose the changes.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 17:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 02:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 14:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 16:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Links
7) In articles, especially when used as a link, an NPOV designation of an event is preferable to a propagandistic operational codename.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 17:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC) This is not a content ruling; operational codenames are always (mild) forms of propaganda - does anyone think that an operation would be called "shameful whimper"? :-). Use of POV terms, of whatever source, as "official" Wikipeda-blessed names should be discouraged.


 * Oppose:
 * I will not refer to the operational codename as "propagandistic" (or not such) as that is a content-wise attitude, and irrelevant. Dmcdevit·t 02:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This seems like the ArbCom dictating content. We can't decide what is or is not "propagandistic." - SimonP 14:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Framed rather broadly. Charles Matthews 16:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Links revised
7.1) In articles, especially when used as a link, a neutral point of view designation of an event is preferable.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 02:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Modified slightly Fred Bauder 03:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 14:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, as a rule. Charles Matthews 16:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Ban for disruption
8) Users who disrupt Wikipedia by edit warring or other unduly aggressive activities may be briefly banned. Repeated offenses may result in more lengthy bans. In extreme cases they may be banned for lengthy periods, even indefinitely.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 17:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 02:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 14:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 16:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Substitution of operational codenames
1) has in a number of instances, including links within articles, substituted neutral terms for American operational codenames "(avoid propaganda terms, please)". Changes include Operation Iraqi Freedom to the Iraq war . In one instance operational names in parentheses were removed, Operation Urgent Fury and Operation Just Cause, ; in another they were substituted, Operation Just Cause to  US invasion of Panama, . His actions have involved only a few operational codenames; however, they were being used in a large number of articles.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 17:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 02:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 14:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 16:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Añoranza response to resistance
2) When Añoranza began removing propagandistic operational codenames from articles and substituting neutral links he did so in many articles without engaging in negotiation with other editors of the articles he edited. When he was reverted, he repeatedly restored his version.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 17:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC) As above.


 * Oppose:
 * As above; there's no reason not to stick to the neutral finding that he edit warred over operational codenames, whether anyone thinks they were propagandistic or not. I don't feel comfortable making that judgment. Dmcdevit·t 02:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 14:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Behaviour not content. Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Charles Matthews 16:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Añoranza response to resistance
2.1) When Añoranza began removing operational codenames from articles and substituting neutral links he did so in many articles without engaging in negotiation with other editors of the articles he edited. When he was reverted, he repeatedly restored his version.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 02:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 03:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 14:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 16:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

POV-statement
3) Añoranza has added, and when removed, restored Template:POV-statement to a number of articles . This tag creates a link "neutrality disputed" which pipes to Neutral point of view. The usage guideline for this tag suggests that it be used "to signify that just that statement may not be entirely without bias." That is it is to be used for specific lines or statements. It is also suggested that users not overdo use of the tag.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 17:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 02:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 14:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 16:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

A subtle point
4) Añoranza's use of the edit summary "No propaganda terms, please", while polite in form, implies intent to use propaganda terms, a violation of assume good faith. Likewise accusing Añoranza of having some agenda other than removal of what is arguably biased terminology is also a violation of assume good faith.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 17:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Though we have to be careful; in a purely content dispute this would be very true, when behavior problems like edit warring arise, AGF begins to be stretched. Dmcdevit·t 02:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 14:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably did so imply; but addressed to the world in general? Hard to tell. Charles Matthews 16:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC) As per Dom.
 * It is the context that makes this applicable. Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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.

Añoranza commended
1) Añoranza is commended for bringing the problem of use of propagandistic operational codenames to the attention of the Wikipedia community.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 17:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 16:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * By edit warring? Dmcdevit·t 02:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A content dispute, and moreover this is far from a clear cut issue. For instance, Operation Market Garden is the overwhelmingly most common name for that battle and renaming it would violate both our policies of using common names and common sense. SimonP 14:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Añoranza banned
2) Añoranza is banned for one week for disrupting Wikipedia by engaging in an aggressive campaign regarding use of propagandistic operational codenames.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 17:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 02:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 14:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 16:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Negotiation
3) The principals in this matter are encouraged to enter into good faith negotiations regarding use of propagandistic operational codenames for which there are neutral alternative names in common use.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 17:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 02:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 14:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 16:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Añoranza banned from military history
4) Añoranza is banned for one year from editing articles related to military history or making any changes relating to the naming of military operations or events in any articles.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 02:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 14:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * No basis whatever for this Fred Bauder 03:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Harsh. Charles Matthews 16:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Far too strong.
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Enforcement by block
1) Violations of Añoranza's article ban may be enforced by blocks of up to a week for repeated offenses. After 5 such blocks, the maximum block length increases to one year. Blocks are to be logged at Requests for arbitration/A%C3%B1oranza.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 02:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Should such a ban be approved Fred Bauder 03:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 14:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What Fred said. Charles Matthews 16:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Should Remedy 4 pass. Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * James F. (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC) I would rather the article ban did not pass. James F. (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

=Discussion by Arbitrators=

Implementation notes
''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 in this case is 6.
 * All principles pass 6-0 except 4 and 7 (replaced by 7.1, which passes).
 * All findings of fact pass 6-0 except 2 (replaced by 2.1 which passes).
 * Remedies 2 (Añoranza banned for one week) and 3 (negotiation recommended) pass 6-0. Remedies 1 and 4 fail, as does the enforcement proposal.

Vote
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.


 * Good enough. Close. Dmcdevit·t 03:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Close. Sam Korn (smoddy) 09:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Close. - SimonP 11:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Close. James F. (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)