Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:43, 5 January 2007

Should there be something about "consensus can change"?

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)[reply]

Obviously, it depends on how you behave at the time. If ten editors jump on you, then consensus hasn't changed, and if you fail to recognize this and edit disruptively, you may be blocked. If you say, "Whoops, sorry, I missed the old discussion, never mind" then you're OK. If a couple of editors jump on you but a couple more indicate that it might be time to rethink the old decision, then consensus may have changed, or at least drifted, and a new discussion is in order. The decision here seems to be mainly about empowering uninvolved admins to adminster situations where there is no formal mechanism to declare consensus and move on. Thatcher131 21:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fantastic. I assume there is no mechanism like this in place now, right? I'm trying to retrace steps to see what should have been done differently and I don't come up with much. If one person yells loud enough, they could force any issue all the way up to the top of the food chain like this. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If ten editors jump on me, but I think they're all wrong, I assume I'm free to argue to change consensus on the talk page or to pursue dispute resolution, so long as I don't do it disruptively. Ne? TheronJ 21:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would think the non-disruptive way to do that would be go to WP:VPP or some other public forum. Find someone who might agree with you. Jumping straight to WP:DR with no other support seems like a disruption in itself. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By WP:DR, I mostly meant requests for comment or third opinions, which are the ~~early stages of that process~~ middle stages of that process, after negotiation with the existing parties. TheronJ 21:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like we're on the same page. I think most people know when they're getting disruptive. The ones that don't - well - end up at ArbCom a lot. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators

Arbitrators active on this case

Fred Bauder
Jdforrester
Morven
Charles Matthews
Dmcdevit
Raul654
SimonP
UninvitedCompany
FloNight

New arbitrators inactive on this case

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.

Flcelloguy
Kirill Lokshin
Paul August
Jpgordon
Blnguyen

Arbitrators whose term expired

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 case a vote if they desire. If they do so, the active list above and the majority tally will be adjusted accordingly.

Questions about proposed principles and findings of fact

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)[reply]

FWIW, I agree with Josiah and look forward to seeing these concerns addressed. --Serge 00:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Along similar lines, SimonP mentions concern over the lack of mention of Izzy Dot in the evidence. For me, the main reason for that is that he was blocked for 24 hours for some of his actions six weeks ago and has not edited since. To me, it seemed like a waste of time and a deflection of attention to focus on someone who appears to have already left the project. Sorry if that was a faulty assumption. What I found odd was that Elonka put two civility tags on his talk page but no {{npa}} tags and no entries at WP:PAIN. He seemed to be the least of her problems. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comment above was made before SimonP's remark; like Wknight94, I had assumed that Izzy Dot's behavior was an aspect of this case that had already been resolved with his block on November 16. Izzy Dot has not edited since this block, and I personally judge his absence to be no great loss to the project. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I see your point, however, I believe that we should respond meaningfully since this came to our attention as part of the case. Izzy made a number of demeaning and inappropriate comments, not just one. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, Uninvited. What about the other questions I asked above, about the tension between "not the role of ArbCom" and "consensus was found", and about Elonka tarring all her opponents with the "personal attacks" brush? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Like the others above, my main concern is distinguishing what was Izzy Dot's behavior and what was general behavior. Also, while looking at his contribs to see if maybe there was something I missed I saw this comment, where he notes using several different accounts. This might be why we haven't seen him edit since his block. -- Ned Scott 05:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I may just interject here, I think you're misinterpreting that comment. Now, I make no claims to know what goes on in the head of someone like Izzy, but that seemed like something else. He said he was a GIPU, then he tried to register and was autoblocked. (probably shared IP issues.) Then, when the Heroes (TV series) article was protected—well, semi-protected, really—he used account for the first time since that autoblock in order to edit that article. Perhaps you read too much into the words "this account".

Before you ask, I'm replying because Elonka also made several claims of Sockpuppetry, none of which seemed to pan out. I couldn't care less about Izzy, personally, but I'd rather sockpuppetry not even be considered an issue. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 08:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I see now when I re-read his comments. -- Ned Scott 08:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Facts

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)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the only mention of sexual harassment comes from Statement by Elonka where she points to this diff: [1]. -- Ned Scott 18:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly an inappropriate remark, but it is not (or at least, not by itself) a "pattern of sexual harrassment through a series of unwanted advances and innuendos". >Radiant< 10:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose other problematic diffs from Izzy Dot towards Elonka could be:

Just a little flirtation [2]
I see you look decent for a writer. Call me. [3]
Aww come on, baby [4]

--Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that vulgar "*pelvic thrust*", linked above. Gah! We're not match.com.. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Context

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)[reply]

I don't know if it's more or less important, but I don't think it really applies to this arbitration case. If admins want to ban Izzy or do something with him, then do it with him and leave the rest of us out of it. I'll even be as bold to say that I think Elonka is using his comments to her advantage, because she knows it will get a reaction out of people that will make them sympathetic with her. It was an isolated issue within the debate with a very minor party. Like I said, I don't really care that it's being mentioned, but it does bother me that it's being mentioned not because it should be, but because it's a "hot button" issue. -- Ned Scott 02:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'd agree with this. Izzy Dot's behaviour was pretty awful, but it wasn't much of a factor in the matter at hand, specifically the disruptive attempts to block consensus which caused this to drag out for six weeks after Izzy's last edit (and to end up in Arbcom). Even if Izzy hadn't participated in this discussion, we'd still be here right now in the same situation. His actions may deserve punishment, but that's mostly a distraction from the real root of this situation. Punish him, but don't make him a scapegoat for this situation.

The fact is, this is mainly the result of Elonka single handedly fighting consensus and forcing the situation into dispute resolution. While I can see the argument behind not giving penalties in this case, I find it a bit shocking that her participation in this situation isn't even mentioned - her name doesn't even appear once in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Proposed decision. Particularly since Elonka has shown that she doesn't see herself at fault unless it is explicitly spelled out and she is mentioned by names. As the statement stands, I assume Elonka will interpret it as evidence that she never did anything wrong, which I fear would likely lead to continued similar behaviour on her part in the future, and potentially end up in another arbcom case down the road. I have no objection to no penalties being imposed. But do Elonka's weeks of unilateral disruptive editing (including editing and trying to block enforcement of a guideline, trying to disrupt the RM process, reverting consensus moves, campaigning, misrepresenting statements of others, making false accusations of personal attacks, among other things) really not even merit a mention?

I'd also like to note that since Elonka went on wikibreak, the rest of the outstanding articles have been moved with no disruption or even objections, and the voluminous discussion seems to have come to a close. I think that's a perfect example of how this whole "dispute" has largely been the kicking and screaming of one editor. (and we'll all see what happens when Elonka returns to editing and participation in this discussion) --Milo H Minderbinder 17:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know...it's funny. At the time, way back when, I was actually a bit torn about Izzzy'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)[reply]

Disruption

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)[reply]

@@ Line 80: / Line 80: @@
 :The fact is, this is mainly the result of Elonka single handedly fighting consensus and forcing the situation into dispute resolution.  While I can see the argument behind not giving penalties in this case, I find it a bit shocking that her participation in this situation isn't even mentioned - her name doesn't even appear once in [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Proposed decision]].  Particularly since Elonka has shown that she doesn't see herself at fault unless it is explicitly spelled out and she is mentioned by names.  As the statement stands, I assume Elonka will interpret it as evidence that she never did anything wrong, which I fear would likely lead to continued similar behaviour on her part in the future, and potentially end up in another arbcom case down the road.  I have no objection to no penalties being imposed.  But do Elonka's weeks of unilateral disruptive editing (including editing and trying to block enforcement of a guideline, trying to disrupt the RM process, reverting consensus moves, campaigning, misrepresenting statements of others, making false accusations of personal attacks, among other things) really not even merit a ''mention''?
 :I'd also like to note that since Elonka went on wikibreak, the rest of the outstanding articles have been moved with no disruption or even objections, and the voluminous discussion seems to have come to a close.  I think that's a perfect example of how this whole "dispute" has largely been the kicking and screaming of one editor. (and we'll all see what happens when Elonka returns to editing and participation in this discussion)  --[[User:Milo H Minderbinder|Milo H Minderbinder]] 17:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
+You know...it's funny. At the time, way back when, I was actually a bit torn about Izzzy'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. [[User:Ace Class Shadow|Ace Class Shadow]]; [[User talk:Ace Class Shadow|My talk]]. 19:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 == Disruption ==