Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-01-14/Arbitration report
Discuss this story
You can refer to my statement as "her statement", as I am freely identified as being female. --Orlady (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Noted and changed. James (T • C) • 5:04pm • 06:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure why I wasn't notified about this one. In any case, I'm not sure why the Chambers Building is the focus of this report. Let me see if I can come up with a "better" description.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, anything I come up with is going to look partisan, whether it is or not. Could I just urge that it be restricted to items in the initial submissions, without chasing down the discussions being referred to? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- I also wondered about the reference to the Chambers Building, since it wasn't something I recalled from the Arbcom case. It looks to me like this could be resolved by (1) deleting the passage that reads: "Upon Doncram's return from a 3-month block for disruptive editing ... given that Doncram was quick to clean up the article and bring it to an acceptable standard" and (2) revising the subsequent sentence to say something like: "The filer noted that in November 2011, Elen of the Roads stated that she had earlier given Doncram a 3-month block for disruptive editing:" --Orlady (talk) 03:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't think I was placing too much emphasis on the Chamber's kerfuffle, I thought it was better to provide background as opposed to paraphrasing, which I dislike. James (T • C) • 5:04pm • 06:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough - thanks for rephrasing and adding the more recent issues I raised. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't think I was placing too much emphasis on the Chamber's kerfuffle, I thought it was better to provide background as opposed to paraphrasing, which I dislike. James (T • C) • 5:04pm • 06:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- I also wondered about the reference to the Chambers Building, since it wasn't something I recalled from the Arbcom case. It looks to me like this could be resolved by (1) deleting the passage that reads: "Upon Doncram's return from a 3-month block for disruptive editing ... given that Doncram was quick to clean up the article and bring it to an acceptable standard" and (2) revising the subsequent sentence to say something like: "The filer noted that in November 2011, Elen of the Roads stated that she had earlier given Doncram a 3-month block for disruptive editing:" --Orlady (talk) 03:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, anything I come up with is going to look partisan, whether it is or not. Could I just urge that it be restricted to items in the initial submissions, without chasing down the discussions being referred to? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Is this a live article? I was notified of this article-in-progress. When does the article go live? I haven't yet posted much in the case.
The big issue for Wikipedia community with this arbitration is whether the community will tolerate long-running, non-stop, harassment and bullying, not yet explained in this Signpost article draft. It is a fair question where and how accusations of bullying should be allowed in Wikipedia. I myself recognize it is unpleasant for many to see me respond negatively to the editors following me, in each of many new self-obviously bullying-type attacks and also in better-disguised confrontations where the bullying is not clearly apparent to uninvolved editors unaware of bigger context. There is a matter of advising a bullying victim -- or blaming a bullying victim -- of responding to the bullying. Is the solution to ban the victim or to ban the following, harassing behavior? No one wants to see a POV editor, say, escape appropriate editing by dint of unfounded claims of bullying. However, when the pattern of following and bullying-type behavior is clear from many years of such behavior, and there is clear enmity, and other telltales of bullying are met, surely the community should come to a conclusion that bullying is going on. And that anyone but the proven bullies should follow and work constructively with the targeted editor. Wikipedia should not tolerate what I have also seen termed "mobbing" of an editor. The issue of bullying is important in society and should be important to the Wikipedia community.
The Ellen-of-roads quote is presented as a condemnation, when phrasing before and after the quoted text is left out that changes the meaning significantly. It is misleading as presented.
Another newsworthy issue with this is the naming of this arbcom case. It is named after one party, me, by dint of another (SarekOfVulcan) jumping to open the arbcom first. The opening request statement was incredibly lame, ill-prepared, consistent with the opening being a rush to frame the. The same editor has given colorful titles to ANI reports and edited ANI discussions' closures and other aspects, and is clearly aware of the value of shaping public opinion by naming and presentation.
I and some others have protested the naming of the arbcom case (see User talk:Doncram#Arbcom case and naming, see my statement and arbcom member replies about naming within Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram). I sincerely don't doubt the good intentions of the arbcom committee members, but it is absurd to suggest that those persons are immune from anchoring and other cognitive biases from the naming, given any fixed content of an arbcom discussion. Further, the naming obviously attracts some who have recent or older gripes against the named party, and fails to attract others who have recent or older gripes against the unnamed parties, or who are concerned about topics such as "bullying and harassment" or "long-term contention" that could have been used as titles. This selection effect was observable, I believe, already in the request for arbitration and in the evidence presented. It was stated that the arbitration committee is discussing naming as an issue. I don't get why the committee could not, at the very first pointing out of this issue, could not have chosen a random name or a descriptive acronym linking the named. To argue that "Doncram" is the unifying theme through this arbitration, so the name is correct, is self-fulfilling. If this is a news article, IMO, this naming issue should be covered by the Signpost journalist(s).
I may have more comment later, depending on what time is allowed here. --doncram 15:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- If you're thinking that you're being bullied and persecuted, shouldn't you be responding to the ArbCom case right now? You haven't provided any evidence to show that you're being bullied. Oh, and your accusation that I use inaccurate data in an article, an accusation that stops just short of telling me that I was lying, hardly counts as a defense to any "bullying" that you've received. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)