Fred, do you think the proposed decision should contain some reference to consensus can change -- i.e., some discussion of whether minority editors can continue to argue against a consensus through the talk pages or dispute resolution and how to recognise when a consensus has changed? If I come to some page and make some bold edits and am told that the local editors reached consensus on the issue several months ago, I assume I'm not in trouble. TheronJ 20:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The newly appointed arbitrators are assumed by default to be recused from cases already open at the time they took office. If an arbitrator becomes active on this case (by declaration or activity), his/her name will be moved to the active list and the majority adjusted accordingly.
Jayjg and The Epopt, who were active when this case was opened, are assumed by default to be no longer active. However, they are still entitled to cast a vote if they desire. If they do so, the active list above and the majority tally will be adjusted accordingly.
I'm slightly confused by the proposed findings of fact and principles added by The Uninvited. On the one hand, The Uninvited's proposed principle 2) says, "It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to make policy or "read" poll results." On the other hand, The Uninvited supports Fred Bauder's finding of fact at #Titles of episodes of television series, which says that "...a consensus decision was reached...". Are these two statements compatible? I presume that The Uninvited is drawing a distinction between "making policy" and determining whether a consensus has already been reached by the policy-making body, i.e. the community. Would it be better if that distinction were stated more clearly in the decision?
I'm also slightly concerned about the proposed finding of fact here. While I do not dispute the fact that personal attacks have been made, there have also been accusations of personal attacks where none truly existed. Elonka has attempted to tar all those who opposed her position in the debate with the actions of Izzy Dot (whose behavior was, of course, beyond the pale). I'm slightly concerned that if a broad statement of "personal attacks occurred" passes without naming those who made them, Elonka may feel vindicated in her broad-brush accusations. Surely it is better to say who made personal attacks and what those attacks were than to make vague statements which, while true, may be open to misinterpretation. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 00:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no intentions of defending Izzy Dot, and I completely agree that he was out of line and all that, but I'm not sure I see the point in noting this for the arbcom case. He was a very minor party in the big picture, and I doubt much would have changed had he not said the things he said. It just sort of suggests that things like "sexual harassment" were an issue (suggesting it was an issue with others as well). As far as I know, he's only said one comment of sexual harassment (the one noted by Elonka on her evidence page), so it's not really a pattern. Again, I have no problem if you guys want to ban him or declare whatever, but it really doesn't have much to do with this dispute. -- Ned Scott 04:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm also concerned about the statement about personal attacks. While there were some (virtually all the worst from Izzy Dot), the genuine personal attacks were vastly outnumbered by Elonka's false accusations of personal attacks (for example claiming that "stalling" is a personal attack). I think the statement as it stands isn't really an accurate picture of the situation, and likely will be spun by Elonka as agreement with her accusations. I also agree with the comments above that findings about personal attacks should mention specific individuals, since the current version seems to lump everyone in with Izzy Dot. -- Milo H Minderbinder 18:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Since the evidence page contains very little evidence of personal attacks (mainly Elonka's broad statement that eight editors "routinely escalated the conflict with attacks") and none at all about sexual harassment, would it not make sense to add a few diffs to the findings of fact? >Radiant< 10:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
While sexual harrassment is a very serious matter in the workplace, particularly when an employee is harrassed by a supervisor or someone in management, let's not take the seriousness that is appropriate in one context and apply it where it isn't. I don't mean to defend the statements made in any manner, but let's remember where we are in a virtual and mostly anonymous and arguably nonsexual environment where this kind of stuff matters much, much less than in the "real" world. In many respect, we are all representing the opinions of virtual "personas" here, not real people. As far as Wikipedia goes, there are much more serious matters to address in this arbitration. -- Serge 00:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Whether 'sexual harrasement' on wikipedia is important or not isn't really the point. The point is that IzzyDot (in terms of this dispute) wasn't important. He voted, and then popped up once in a while to say something incivil (often it's not even something that has anything to do with the naming conventions issue), then got banned and dissapeared. That's it, end of story. -- `/aksha 13:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
You know...it's funny. At the time, way back when, I was actually a bit torn about Izzy's behavior. On the one hand, I knew it was wholly inappropriate. On the other, and forgive me if this sounds cold, I wondered if maybe...Elonka deserved it. I mean, no one deserves to be persistantly molested anonynmously without any sort of provocation, but Elonka's behavior was the real issue here. Izzy's long gone. Blocking him for a shorterm pattern of inappropriate conduct and letting Elonka off with a slap on the wrist, when she may have brought it on herself, seems wholly unfair. I think myself, Yaksha, Milo, Serge, Josi and Ned can agree that additionally/excessively punishing Izzy months after the fact and letting Elonka off sends the wrong message. Izzy isn't even anyone's concern anymore. Do what you will, but don't just go after Izzy because it's easier than dealing with El. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the point is that her behaviour was going to lead to someone (who in this case happened to be IzzyDot) giving her a few very incivil comments sooner or later. I wouldn't say she deserved it, but she should have defintely been expecting something like it. -- `/aksha 10:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
There are quite a number of accusations of disruption in this case (e.g. Yaksha claims Elonka's filibustering is disruptive; Elonka claims Yaksha's page moves are disruptive). It may be worthwhile if the ArbCom would make a statement about disruption. The point of this would be to prevent future claims that this arbitration was necessary because of the "obvious" disruption by the other party. >Radiant< 10:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
(continuing thread from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Evidence#Christmas)
I have a question for the arbitrators, now that I am back from my extended wiki-break. My absence was caused partially by the holidays, and partially by a record-breaking snowstorm in New Mexico which closed I-40 for a few days, and caused further travel delays. Before I disappeared off Wikipedia on December 22 though, I was in the middle of presenting evidence. I had done my best to devote what time I could to the evidence page during early December, but had not yet completed my section.
Now that I'm back, should I continue, or would it be irrelevant since the ArbCom voting has already started?
If I were to proceed, I would be expanding the sections which documented incivility, harassment, and general disruption. I might also include a few diffs from comments during this ArbCom process, such as Ace Class Shadow's extremely ugly comment above that anyone could "deserve" the sexually harassing comments by Izzy Dot. This recent comment by Ace [5] is just an example of a larger pattern of incivility generated by him and other participants in this debate -- they often either were uncivil, or encouraged others to be uncivil, and they (primarily Ace Class Shadow, Yaksha, Wknight94, Ned Scott, and Milo H Minderbinder) took this mindset to several different areas of Wikipedia.
If the Arbitrators would like, I will present diffs which document this behavior. However, if the time for presenting evidence is past, then I have better things which I would rather do with my time (such as writing new articles). Perhaps the above editors will have learned lessons from this ArbCom case, and will behave more professionally in the future. Or if not, their behavior will surely get them into further trouble later on, and I can always present my evidence later if it's needed. Currently though, I see it as being up to the Arbitrators as to whether I should continue presenting evidence now or not. -- El on ka 01:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I feel it's painfully obvious that Elonka is detached from the rest of us and has entirely gotten the wrong idea about the situation, so I don't feel a need to address anything she's said. Although, I will say this, the DRV on the Lost season articles has nothing to do with this dispute, Elonka, or naming conventions. I have a history of trying to remove / reduce needless plot summaries and fan-cruft all over Wikipedia, and there's no logical reason to come to the conclusion that the DRV is related to this dispute.
I understand if the arbiters don't wish to comment on anyone's behavior other than Izzy Dot's, but as others have said, if they don't comment on Elonka's then the behavior will likely continue. It amazes me to what extent she tries our patience, even now. The extent that she'll go to twist words around (such as Fred's), mislead, ignore others, and attempt to continue the core of the debate to this very day is just.. insane. -- Ned Scott 20:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it, if the current motion to close passes, neither Appeal to the Arbitration Committee not viable nor When in doubt, involve others will pass, because 6 votes are needed for a majority in this case. It seems to me that one or the other would be useful to the case, in particular to explain the remedy Closing of a consensus decision making procedure. Several arbitrators have not voted on either of these two proposed principles. It might be good if they did before the case is closed. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 08:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Since Elonka persists in posting false information to get sanctions on her opponents, I've added a finding to that extent. I believe the ArbCom is unaware of the extent of her misleading or false statements throughout the entire dispute, or indeed the several falsehoods she posted on the evidence page. Such behavior is entirely inappropriate. >Radiant< 09:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed the "motion to close" thing on the proposed decision page.
I guess this is just one last request for the ArbCom to consider making a statement about Elonka's behaviour during this dispute (and/or the misleading nature of her statements and evidence presented) before actually closeing this case.
The reason i'm asking for this is that i believe without it - we're leaving half the problem unsolved. I said at the very beginning of my request for arbitration that i was hoping an arbcom case would 'put a lid' on this dispute by showing:
So far, we've achieved half of that. the ArbCom has agreed that consensus was been achieved, and that people should not violate consensus.
However, i'm worried that without some formal statement from the ARbCom specifically addressing Elonka's role in this - she will believe that her behaviour in this is acceptable and endorsed. More importantly, i worry that she will continue to refer to this dispute as per her version of events (as outlined in her evidence). So for example, saying things like "the time ___ was harrassing me (then refer to this dispute)", or "___ does have a history of being incivil, he said this and that to me (then link to her evidence)". This concerns me, as she's been accusing a lot of people for a lot misbehaviour, and seems to be awfully good at presenting misleading evidence.
I have no reason to believe Elonka won't do this in future. And having to defend myself against all the multitudes of misbehaviours she's accused me of will be very annoying. Since i believe that her intentionally misleading behaviour contributed to a large part of this dispute, i really do think the ArbCom here needs to specifically address it.
I'm not asking for punishment - i can understand that the ArbCom isn't wanting to throw around any bans over something like this. Just something like a formal finding of fact would be great - this means Elonka is formally told that being intentionally misleading (in both discussion with other editors and in presenting evidence) is not acceptable behaviour. It also means other editors looking into this dispute/case in future would not need to wade through long evidence/workshop pages to realize that they should treat Elonka's evidence with caution. -- `/aksha 10:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
While I cannot speak for the committee as a whole, it is my view that the matter of Elonka's statements regarding other editors is a separate matter. The committee was asked to address the matter of the page moves, and did address some other tangentially related but very clear matters that came to light. I don't believe that it makes sense for us to drag out this case by evaluating new claims presented late in the proceedings. If you believe Elonka's statements or behavior are troublesome enough to warrant it, I suggest that you make a new RFAR. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Fred, do you think the proposed decision should contain some reference to consensus can change -- i.e., some discussion of whether minority editors can continue to argue against a consensus through the talk pages or dispute resolution and how to recognise when a consensus has changed? If I come to some page and make some bold edits and am told that the local editors reached consensus on the issue several months ago, I assume I'm not in trouble. TheronJ 20:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The newly appointed arbitrators are assumed by default to be recused from cases already open at the time they took office. If an arbitrator becomes active on this case (by declaration or activity), his/her name will be moved to the active list and the majority adjusted accordingly.
Jayjg and The Epopt, who were active when this case was opened, are assumed by default to be no longer active. However, they are still entitled to cast a vote if they desire. If they do so, the active list above and the majority tally will be adjusted accordingly.
I'm slightly confused by the proposed findings of fact and principles added by The Uninvited. On the one hand, The Uninvited's proposed principle 2) says, "It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to make policy or "read" poll results." On the other hand, The Uninvited supports Fred Bauder's finding of fact at #Titles of episodes of television series, which says that "...a consensus decision was reached...". Are these two statements compatible? I presume that The Uninvited is drawing a distinction between "making policy" and determining whether a consensus has already been reached by the policy-making body, i.e. the community. Would it be better if that distinction were stated more clearly in the decision?
I'm also slightly concerned about the proposed finding of fact here. While I do not dispute the fact that personal attacks have been made, there have also been accusations of personal attacks where none truly existed. Elonka has attempted to tar all those who opposed her position in the debate with the actions of Izzy Dot (whose behavior was, of course, beyond the pale). I'm slightly concerned that if a broad statement of "personal attacks occurred" passes without naming those who made them, Elonka may feel vindicated in her broad-brush accusations. Surely it is better to say who made personal attacks and what those attacks were than to make vague statements which, while true, may be open to misinterpretation. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 00:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no intentions of defending Izzy Dot, and I completely agree that he was out of line and all that, but I'm not sure I see the point in noting this for the arbcom case. He was a very minor party in the big picture, and I doubt much would have changed had he not said the things he said. It just sort of suggests that things like "sexual harassment" were an issue (suggesting it was an issue with others as well). As far as I know, he's only said one comment of sexual harassment (the one noted by Elonka on her evidence page), so it's not really a pattern. Again, I have no problem if you guys want to ban him or declare whatever, but it really doesn't have much to do with this dispute. -- Ned Scott 04:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm also concerned about the statement about personal attacks. While there were some (virtually all the worst from Izzy Dot), the genuine personal attacks were vastly outnumbered by Elonka's false accusations of personal attacks (for example claiming that "stalling" is a personal attack). I think the statement as it stands isn't really an accurate picture of the situation, and likely will be spun by Elonka as agreement with her accusations. I also agree with the comments above that findings about personal attacks should mention specific individuals, since the current version seems to lump everyone in with Izzy Dot. -- Milo H Minderbinder 18:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Since the evidence page contains very little evidence of personal attacks (mainly Elonka's broad statement that eight editors "routinely escalated the conflict with attacks") and none at all about sexual harassment, would it not make sense to add a few diffs to the findings of fact? >Radiant< 10:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
While sexual harrassment is a very serious matter in the workplace, particularly when an employee is harrassed by a supervisor or someone in management, let's not take the seriousness that is appropriate in one context and apply it where it isn't. I don't mean to defend the statements made in any manner, but let's remember where we are in a virtual and mostly anonymous and arguably nonsexual environment where this kind of stuff matters much, much less than in the "real" world. In many respect, we are all representing the opinions of virtual "personas" here, not real people. As far as Wikipedia goes, there are much more serious matters to address in this arbitration. -- Serge 00:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Whether 'sexual harrasement' on wikipedia is important or not isn't really the point. The point is that IzzyDot (in terms of this dispute) wasn't important. He voted, and then popped up once in a while to say something incivil (often it's not even something that has anything to do with the naming conventions issue), then got banned and dissapeared. That's it, end of story. -- `/aksha 13:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
You know...it's funny. At the time, way back when, I was actually a bit torn about Izzy's behavior. On the one hand, I knew it was wholly inappropriate. On the other, and forgive me if this sounds cold, I wondered if maybe...Elonka deserved it. I mean, no one deserves to be persistantly molested anonynmously without any sort of provocation, but Elonka's behavior was the real issue here. Izzy's long gone. Blocking him for a shorterm pattern of inappropriate conduct and letting Elonka off with a slap on the wrist, when she may have brought it on herself, seems wholly unfair. I think myself, Yaksha, Milo, Serge, Josi and Ned can agree that additionally/excessively punishing Izzy months after the fact and letting Elonka off sends the wrong message. Izzy isn't even anyone's concern anymore. Do what you will, but don't just go after Izzy because it's easier than dealing with El. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the point is that her behaviour was going to lead to someone (who in this case happened to be IzzyDot) giving her a few very incivil comments sooner or later. I wouldn't say she deserved it, but she should have defintely been expecting something like it. -- `/aksha 10:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
There are quite a number of accusations of disruption in this case (e.g. Yaksha claims Elonka's filibustering is disruptive; Elonka claims Yaksha's page moves are disruptive). It may be worthwhile if the ArbCom would make a statement about disruption. The point of this would be to prevent future claims that this arbitration was necessary because of the "obvious" disruption by the other party. >Radiant< 10:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
(continuing thread from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Evidence#Christmas)
I have a question for the arbitrators, now that I am back from my extended wiki-break. My absence was caused partially by the holidays, and partially by a record-breaking snowstorm in New Mexico which closed I-40 for a few days, and caused further travel delays. Before I disappeared off Wikipedia on December 22 though, I was in the middle of presenting evidence. I had done my best to devote what time I could to the evidence page during early December, but had not yet completed my section.
Now that I'm back, should I continue, or would it be irrelevant since the ArbCom voting has already started?
If I were to proceed, I would be expanding the sections which documented incivility, harassment, and general disruption. I might also include a few diffs from comments during this ArbCom process, such as Ace Class Shadow's extremely ugly comment above that anyone could "deserve" the sexually harassing comments by Izzy Dot. This recent comment by Ace [5] is just an example of a larger pattern of incivility generated by him and other participants in this debate -- they often either were uncivil, or encouraged others to be uncivil, and they (primarily Ace Class Shadow, Yaksha, Wknight94, Ned Scott, and Milo H Minderbinder) took this mindset to several different areas of Wikipedia.
If the Arbitrators would like, I will present diffs which document this behavior. However, if the time for presenting evidence is past, then I have better things which I would rather do with my time (such as writing new articles). Perhaps the above editors will have learned lessons from this ArbCom case, and will behave more professionally in the future. Or if not, their behavior will surely get them into further trouble later on, and I can always present my evidence later if it's needed. Currently though, I see it as being up to the Arbitrators as to whether I should continue presenting evidence now or not. -- El on ka 01:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I feel it's painfully obvious that Elonka is detached from the rest of us and has entirely gotten the wrong idea about the situation, so I don't feel a need to address anything she's said. Although, I will say this, the DRV on the Lost season articles has nothing to do with this dispute, Elonka, or naming conventions. I have a history of trying to remove / reduce needless plot summaries and fan-cruft all over Wikipedia, and there's no logical reason to come to the conclusion that the DRV is related to this dispute.
I understand if the arbiters don't wish to comment on anyone's behavior other than Izzy Dot's, but as others have said, if they don't comment on Elonka's then the behavior will likely continue. It amazes me to what extent she tries our patience, even now. The extent that she'll go to twist words around (such as Fred's), mislead, ignore others, and attempt to continue the core of the debate to this very day is just.. insane. -- Ned Scott 20:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it, if the current motion to close passes, neither Appeal to the Arbitration Committee not viable nor When in doubt, involve others will pass, because 6 votes are needed for a majority in this case. It seems to me that one or the other would be useful to the case, in particular to explain the remedy Closing of a consensus decision making procedure. Several arbitrators have not voted on either of these two proposed principles. It might be good if they did before the case is closed. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 08:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Since Elonka persists in posting false information to get sanctions on her opponents, I've added a finding to that extent. I believe the ArbCom is unaware of the extent of her misleading or false statements throughout the entire dispute, or indeed the several falsehoods she posted on the evidence page. Such behavior is entirely inappropriate. >Radiant< 09:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed the "motion to close" thing on the proposed decision page.
I guess this is just one last request for the ArbCom to consider making a statement about Elonka's behaviour during this dispute (and/or the misleading nature of her statements and evidence presented) before actually closeing this case.
The reason i'm asking for this is that i believe without it - we're leaving half the problem unsolved. I said at the very beginning of my request for arbitration that i was hoping an arbcom case would 'put a lid' on this dispute by showing:
So far, we've achieved half of that. the ArbCom has agreed that consensus was been achieved, and that people should not violate consensus.
However, i'm worried that without some formal statement from the ARbCom specifically addressing Elonka's role in this - she will believe that her behaviour in this is acceptable and endorsed. More importantly, i worry that she will continue to refer to this dispute as per her version of events (as outlined in her evidence). So for example, saying things like "the time ___ was harrassing me (then refer to this dispute)", or "___ does have a history of being incivil, he said this and that to me (then link to her evidence)". This concerns me, as she's been accusing a lot of people for a lot misbehaviour, and seems to be awfully good at presenting misleading evidence.
I have no reason to believe Elonka won't do this in future. And having to defend myself against all the multitudes of misbehaviours she's accused me of will be very annoying. Since i believe that her intentionally misleading behaviour contributed to a large part of this dispute, i really do think the ArbCom here needs to specifically address it.
I'm not asking for punishment - i can understand that the ArbCom isn't wanting to throw around any bans over something like this. Just something like a formal finding of fact would be great - this means Elonka is formally told that being intentionally misleading (in both discussion with other editors and in presenting evidence) is not acceptable behaviour. It also means other editors looking into this dispute/case in future would not need to wade through long evidence/workshop pages to realize that they should treat Elonka's evidence with caution. -- `/aksha 10:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
While I cannot speak for the committee as a whole, it is my view that the matter of Elonka's statements regarding other editors is a separate matter. The committee was asked to address the matter of the page moves, and did address some other tangentially related but very clear matters that came to light. I don't believe that it makes sense for us to drag out this case by evaluating new claims presented late in the proceedings. If you believe Elonka's statements or behavior are troublesome enough to warrant it, I suggest that you make a new RFAR. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)