Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Proposed decision

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Arbitrators

Arbitrators active on this case

• Fred Bauder
• Jdforrester
• Morven
• Charles Matthews
• Dmcdevit
• Raul654
• SimonP
• UninvitedCompany
• FloNight
• Blnguyen

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

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 cast 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)

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

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

Ah, yes, I see now when I re-read his comments. -- Ned Scott 08:43, 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

While I agree that the behavior of Izzy Dot is a side issue, I hasten to disassociate myself from the suggestion that Elonka in any way "deserved it". There is no excuse for the sort of incivility Izzy displayed, and even insofar as Elonka's behavior was disruptive it did not in any way justify the sexually tinged comments and crudeness practiced by Izzy. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Josiah on this one. I'm not sure if Ace meant it to sound the way it did, but I don't think it's fair to say that anyone "deserved" such comments. -- Ned Scott 21:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right. What I mean is, Elonka's persist disputing of consensus was bound to incite...something. I'm not saying it's right, more human nature. She didn't deserve it, per se, but I doubt it would have happened if she had respected consensus. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:11, 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)

Yes! Thank you, Yaksha. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 16:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps I might point out (as Yaksha hints at earlier) that Izzy Dot (talk · contribs) hasn't even made a comment in nearly two months -- so there really doesn't appear to be much point in blocking him, other than for show. Further, considering that he wasn't listed as an Involved Party, it seems a rather odd precedent to enact punishment without giving him an opportunity to make a statement on his own behalf.--Leflyman^Talk 21:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

I think the finding that there was a consensus, but that it was not recognized by all parties, pretty much says it all. The committee is gving Elonka (and any supporters) a one-time only get out of jail free card. Thatcher131 04:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, I got that part, and I am not asking for sanctions of any kind, I'm asking for clarification because that would actually end the dispute. The way the decision is worded now, it leaves the door wide open for continuing the dispute. For instance, the following dialogue is far from hypothetical, and is reminiscent of the way the debate turned out on the talk page of WP:NC-TV, the mediation page, the village pump and some wikiprojects (can you say "forest fire"?)

  X: "Y's filibustering was so disruptive that the ArbCom was needed to put a stop to it."

  Y: "No it wasn't, there's no mentioning of filibustering at all."

  X: "But it does say people who violate consensus can be blocked, and you violated consensus."

  Y: "No I didn't, that is a personal attack and you have a habit of making personal attacks. There were so many personal attacks in that dispute that the ArbCom was needed to put a stop to them."

  X: "No there weren't, there's no mention of people making personal attacks in the final decision."

  Y: "Was too. One user was even banned for making them."

  X: "Was not. That was a throwaway account, and it's not relevant to the dispute as a whole."

  Y: "Was too. You're disruptive!"

  X: "Was not! You're disruptive."

• And I'm not saying X would start it, it might as well be Y. But by being vague, the ArbCom leaves the door wide open for such undesirable dialogue, which would be a Bad Thing. >Radiant< 15:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Additional evidence

(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. --Elonka 01:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, El, I never said you deserved it. I said I wondered if you deserved it. Ultimately, I'd say it was unfortunate and shouldn't have happened. However, it certainly was not any fault of my "gang" as you once called us. Wknight and others were quick to warn Izzy. I'll hold off saying anything more before you try to twist my words and make further implicite accusations. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Aside from Izzy Dot, the current proposed decision seems largely unconcerned with your claims of harassment, incivility, and disruption. One of the principles which seems likely to pass states that there was a lack of behavior problems in the dispute. Unless you've got something new to cite, rather than just more of the same evidence you've already presented, I doubt it will change anyone's perceptions of this case.

I'd also like to know if you've learned anything here. "Be more civil" is always an easy recommendation, but have you come to any conclusions about identifying and respecting consensus? Fred Bauder made a comment in the workshop which suggested to me that trivial matters like this need not be subject to such intense scrutiny. When a decision is made over a trivial matter, it should be accepted, even if you disagree with the process used. Do you agree with that sentiment and do you think you'll abide by it in the future? –  Anþony  talk  23:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That comment by Bauder could go both ways. From another point of view, the "decision" about naming had already been made by certain WikiProjects, and it was disruptive for a few editors to go in and make a big deal about changing that decision, especially to the point of moving thousands of pages, without RMs, while other users were protesting the moves (evidence[6][7]).

As for the arbitrators seeming "unconcerned" with harassment, incivility and disruption, my opinion is that this does not speak to whether or not they are concerned, but to the fact that there was insufficient evidence about it. I would also point out that they started voting during the holiday season, before I had been able to finish presenting my own evidence, and before some of the other involved editors had returned from their own holiday breaks.

Another concern that I myself continue to have, is how the level of rudeness from a few of the individuals in this debate appeared to drive away "good" editors from Wikipedia.[8] I've chatted with a few of the now-absent editors in IMs and email about why they haven't participated recently, and the general attitude, aside from, "I don't have time for Wikipedia during the holidays," is a sense of disgust at the rudeness and hostility that they've observed. In other words, some of them have unfortunately come to the conclusion that "it's not worth it" to participate on Wikipedia. This perception saddens me.

As regards the discussion at the NC-TV page, I still believe that the discussion was dominated by several editors who were posting in a highly uncivil manner. When I see an editor acting in a rude manner, I tend to discount any other opinions that such an editor has -- In other words, my general practice is to give more weight to the opinions of the courteous editors. I realize that other people may have different opinions on this, and will still give full weight to the opinion of an uncivil editor. I disagree with this practice, as I feel that it simply encourages rude, aggressive, and unethical behavior. I would also point out that one of the RMs that was submitted in this case was submitted in an unethical "get it done while their backs are turned" manner, right on top of Christmas, while many editors (including myself) were on break.[9]. It should be obvious that any such highly controversial discussion, if it seems to suddenly have a unanimous support with a complete absence of any opposition, was run in an unethical way.

Aside from the above types of poor behavior, I further believe that some of the individuals in this dispute have been extremely disruptive in other ways, to the detriment of Wikipedia. I stand by my opinion that it is uncivil to delete another user's good faith posts [10][11], and it is especially rude to do so with uncivil edit summaries [12][13]. Further, I believe that unless addressed, the editors who engaged in this type of behavior are just going to continue on with this disruption. For example, I would point out a recent Deletion Review debate, where Ned Scott is arguing with multiple of the opposers[14] in an attempt to get his way; or User talk:Ghirlandajo#Creating user pages for others, where some of these editors descended with rudeness and hostility. Or the repeated uncivil comments by Ace Class Shadow in a variety of locations: "They're idiots"[15], a masked "The bitch is back" [16] [17] "Stop the fucking presses" [18].

As I mentioned above, if anyone wants me to continue providing evidence of these kinds of incidents, I will do so. If not, I have other things I would rather do with my time. --Elonka 19:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Your analysis of my edit summaries is subjective, Elonka. Try searching "the is back" on, say, Google. "Bitch" didn't even come up as a first back result for me. While I'd never attack you by saying you're paranoid, I humbly ask that you consider the possibility that you may be being paranoid. Put less wordily, I ask, are there men after you? Do the the aliens want to kidnap you? Also, I'd argue that actions made by users regarding other issues should be considered irrelevant and immaterial. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That's disingenuous, ACS — I recognized your comment as "the bitch is back", and called you on it.[19] (I don't think there are any other Elton John songs titled "The _____ Is Back".) And you pretty much acknowledged that was what you were saying.[20] This game of testing the boundaries to see what you can get away with is immature and inappropriate for Wikipedia. Stop it.

As for Elonka's interpretation of Fred Bauder's "straining at gnats" comment, I think that his subsequent comment on Elonka's talk page [21] clarifies which "small thing" a "big fuss" was being made over.

Finally, although I did request [22] that the Star Trek page move request be extended to allow users who were away for Christmas, I don't think that the filing of the move request was "unethical". At 13-0, even if a handful of editors had opposed the move, it would still have been passed. And it's worth noting that the closing admin thought that the move request was superfluous; see discussion at Talk:List of Star Trek episodes#Discussion and User talk:IanManka/Archive/12#Star Trek episode page moves. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Josi, I fear you misinterpreted my statement. I never confirmed nor denied the conclusion both you and Elonka came to, I simply feel it cannoot be proven. Also, I forgot to ask, what are "good faith posts"? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, I take strong objection to your accusation that editors involved in this situation have driven "good" editors away from wikipedia, and request that you withdraw it. You have only shown one editor who has reduced his editing (similar to how you have claimed that many editors agree with you, but were never able to say who they were or provide any proof of your statement), and his actions seem more like making a point than being honestly driven away. Despite his claims that he hasn't taken sides on the naming issues, he has supported preemptive disambiguation in the case of Lost. If he chooses to leave the project because he's upset he didn't get his way, or because people didn't behave the way he insisted, or because he wanted to provide an example of someone "disgusted by the whole thing" then he bears all the responsibility for his departure. Stop blaming it on others. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You can count me as one who has significantly cut down lately because I was disgusted with the rudeness and negative, unconstructive tone of this whole argument. I have limited time and energy, and this "discussion" has left a really bad taste in my mouth. I say this not because I presume that anyone cares what I do or don't do, but to note for the record that Elonka is not being disingenuous (sp?) in claiming that such is the case for more than one editor, and that we have expressed this to her privately. Good lord. Riverbend 19:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Generally I think this decision boils down to (reading between the lines as well as the lines themselves) (a) There was a consensus to disambiguate only when necessary, (b) forgiveness is extended to editors who may have prolonged the issue inappropriately, due to the fact that there was no "official" way to close the debate, (c) forgiveness is also extended toward editors (except Izzy) who may have reacted inappropriately to the prolongation of the issue by a minority, (d) drop it or else. I believe the arbitrators expect that with the dispute resolved, there will be no further page-move warring and no further harsh remarks towards participants, so there is no need to punish past acts (blocks and bans and probations are intended to be preventative rather than punitive). I would expect that if they act on Elonka's evidence of personal attacks they might also act on evidence of Elonka's disruptive editing and moving, both of which would punish past conduct more than prevent future conduct. They are in fact showing great faith in your ability to act like responsible editors and move on. Thatcher131 04:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with this assessment for the most part (although I suspect the main reason they haven't acted on Elonka's accusations of personal attacks is because most of those accusations are false). I respect their decision not to punish those in this case, but I don't think they're being specific enough in the findings of fact, specifically which parties were disruptive (and mentioning names). "A consensus decision was reached...but is not respected by some users" is clear to me, but Elonka's recent statements on this page, which still insist that she did nothing wrong and that those who decided to move pages were the disruptive ones, demonstrate that she is unable or unwilling to see herself as being at fault unless the committee specifically mentions her by name and says exactly what she did wrong. I'm impressed by their faith in the editors involved in this matter, but I think they're giving Elonka way too much faith, and are leaving the door open for her to continue insisting she did nothing wrong, and continue her disruptive behaviour.

I have no objection to the "get out of jail free card", but I'd like to strongly urge the committee to mention Elonka in the findings of fact and spell out to her exactly why her behaviour was disruptive. I fear if they don't, her behaviour will continue (she's still continuing to make the same arguments on this page, even after the committee members have all agreed so far that consensus was reached) and I fear she'll be back in some level of dispute resolution before too long.

As a procedural question, if this case doesn't add any further points, and similar disruptive behaviour continues, could this case be reopened, or would new actions have to be taken (whether that be another arbcom case or other means)?--Milo H Minderbinder 14:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The matter of personal attacks was not looked into because the main issue was whether there was consensus, and what procedure is appropriate for determining consensus. If Elonka continues to defy consensus and argue and fuss, or god forbid, move war, she will be in trouble. Fred Bauder 15:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Actually I don't think that's true, Fred. I believe the main issues, as judged from the evidence and workshop pages, are
  1. that both sides consider the other side to be disruptive;
  2. how much dissent (or e.g. ongoing mediation) is required to declare a guideline "in dispute" or "controversial";
  3. whether WikiProject guidelines are subject to input from outside that project;
  4. whether it's appropriate to use WP:RM over a single article of a "group" and invoke WP:SNOW on the rest of the group;
  5. whether a flawed poll must necessarily be followed up with a better poll; and
  6. whether "move locking" is a bad thing.
• The answer to many of these may seem obvious, but if in fact they were obvious to all involved there wouldn't have been a dispute. I do believe clarification of several of these would be helpful to avert future dispute. >Radiant< 15:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Fred, thanks for the clarification. My concerns are mainly that Elonka still seems to deny that she has defied consensus, and she still continues to make statements that seem like arguing and fussing: "From another point of view, the "decision" about naming had already been made by certain WikiProjects, and it was disruptive for a few editors to go in and make a big deal about changing that decision, especially to the point of moving thousands of pages, without RMs, while other users were protesting the moves (evidence[6][7])." She sees others as disruptive, she still sees page moves as disruptive (regardless of whether RM is used or not), she even blames editors for causing people to leave the project. I guess I'm mainly concerned about how enforcement will interpret "defying consensus" - as long it includes dragging out discussions or accusing consensus actions of being "controversial", "disputed", or "disruptive" I'm OK with it. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, while it might be useful for the committee to comment on your points (I'd have no objection to them adding comments about them), I think that we editors already have consensus agreement on at least 2-6, which are more policy issues than behaviour issues. If these issues arise, they will be determined by consensus, and assuming the remedies are accepted and enforced, if someone disagrees with consensus and tries to disrupt it, they can be blocked. I think if the fighting of consensus is remedied, we can resolve the other issues on our own. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

See the Remedies section, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions/Proposed_decision#Violation_of_consensus. If you were to feel that someone was making inappropriate page moves or in other ways being disruptive, you would make a complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement and it will be evaluated and appropriate action taking (starting with warnings, going up to blocks if necessary). Thatcher131 14:43, 12 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)

Agreed. I feel we are just being set up for a repeat of these events exactly 181 days after the issuing of the decision. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Closing

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)

I don't see either of those as that crucial. The main point is that consensus was reached, that ignoring consensus is bad, and that people who continue to ignore consensus once this is closed can be blocked. While it would be nice if it went further in some respects, I think those are the main points and that's enough to resolve the situation. Right now there are four votes, assuming nobody adds an oppose, this case should be closed in about 24 hours. I'll be glad to see it finally end, the situation has dragged on enough. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not see these as key to the case and therefore see no reason to delay the close of the case to get an up or down vote on them. FloNight 18:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm back now. Events in Missouri (a state of emergency by the recent ice storm) were keeping me offline (details in my blog). I'll endeavor to have my evidence wrapped up within the day. --Elonka 18:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I pulled my vote to close the case for 24 hours so you can finish giving your evidence. The case is likely to close after that with or without your evidence so please supply it now. Take care, FloNight 18:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the extension, my section is now completed. Please accept my profuse apologies for the multiple delays! I completely reorganized my evidence section, including condensing it down to the minimum size that I could manage. I endeavored to stick with very clear examples, and removed much of the "timeline" documentation. That information is still in history though, if anyone needs it.

I also added a few extra proposed principles and findings of fact on the Workshop page.

At this point, I have to admit that I feel a great weight off my shoulders.  :) Even if my evidence does not end up making any differences in the final decision, I feel better knowing that I was able to complete my section, since its half-finished status was on my mind while I was snowed-in during the last couple weeks.

For what it's worth, I have no intention of challenging the final ArbCom decision, whichever way it goes. I see ArbCom as a useful part of the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution process. And just as with an AfD or DRV discussion, I may not always agree with the decision of the closing admin, but I will respect it.  :)

Lastly, despite some of the unusual comments that have been made about my behavior throughout this process, it is my hope that ultimately it will be clear that I am a longtime hardworking Wikipedian, that I believe strongly in the project, and that in general I'm not groundzero for various disputes. In this one particular case though, I felt strongly that I had an obligation to speak up. But I will be glad when the matter is finally resolved, as I am very much looking forward to getting back to writing articles! :) Thanks, Elonka 04:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I will be glad when the matter is finally resolved, as I am very much looking forward to getting back to writing articles! So say we all! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Imagine if it were ended 2½ months ago when it should have been? We could have had the same result plus 2½ months of encyclopedia building. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The same could be said for every arbitration case. Thatcher131 14:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you folks are saints from heaven for dealing with this type of nonsense day in and day out. Sincerely you are. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Here, here! Thank you to the arbitrators who worked on this case for your diligence and patience. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Finding

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)

Isn't it enough that we did not credit it? Fred Bauder 21:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It has occurred before, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar/Workshop that many dubious things proposed by the parties were ignored. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

More so, now that you have explicitly stated this. From the outside, it wasn't clear whether the Committee was actively rejecting Elonka's evidence as misleading, or merely being (understandably) overwhelmed by the volume of evidence on both sides and assuming that it came out as a wash. An active statement of skepticism, as Fred has just made above, indicates that it was more the former than the latter, which comes as something of a relief. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, I honestly don't care at this point. Can't we just let it go and move on? I mean, whatever our personal feelings regarding Elonka's actions, this whole thing is close to ending. Besides, what would it say about us if, instead of getting passed this, we'd rather see Elonka punished for perceived offenses? Besides, I think the arbitrators made it very clear they'd rather not use their authority punitively. (Izzy Dot notwithstanding.) Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. At least we have all this evidence now to be able to show a pattern of disruption should it continue... --Serge 19:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The misleading statements are continuing to this day. Who's to say they're not going to continue past today and past this ArbCom case? The behavior is a detriment to the community and is a good point to get across. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hard to really be "misleading" on a wiki. People try to put their "spin" on things all the time, but I'd say most admins are pretty adept at getting past such smokescreens, should this issue become a problem again. Thatcher131 19:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Being merely "pretty adept" at getting past such smokescreens might not be good enough in this case. I, for one, have not seen anyone else come close to "wikilawyering" (for lack of a better term) as effectively as Elonka. She has turned it into an art form, almost worthy of commendation in and of itself. But highly disruptive it is. --Serge 22:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• "Isn't it enough that we did not credit it?" Normally, I'd say so, but this is an excessive case. The only reason this relatively trivial issue has dragged on for more than three months is because Elonka has made many false claims to disparage others, and persists in making those claims after they are already established as false. For instance, she asks that people be blocked for moving pages because of "earlier disruption" (which she made up). When people take it to RM, she wants it closed because it's controversial (which she also made up). When people discuss it, she says consensus was established in earlier mediation (which, again, she made up). When the discussion reaches a conclusion, she says it's invalid because dozens of people demand a new poll (which she made up as well). When people call her on her falsehoods, she calls them on personal attacks (which, once more, she made up).
• The point is that, unless it is clearly established now that these are falsehood, she will keep bringing them up anywhere and everywhere, and tell others not to believe in User:Foo in whatever conversation they're having, because "he was disruptive earlier, and made attacks, and controversial page moves, and the mediation committee told him to stop, and admins were going to block him, and he still hasn't learned" - even though none of that is true. This intentionally misleading behavior is disruptive. This is the dispute that has ended up at dispute resolution, and it simply won't help to close the process without resolving it. >Radiant< 09:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Motion to Close

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:

1. formally that consensus was reached

2. and that this "dispute" is over.

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)

To say that behaviour is either 'actionable' or 'endorsed' is a false dichotomy, clearly. Charles Matthews 11:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, but while it is clear from this case that the behavior is not actionable, it is not clear whether the behavior is endorsed. Hence, the request for clarification. >Radiant< 11:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

We ask users to state their view of the situation. In a dispute, it is expected that there will be widely different opinions about the issues. If we come down hard on people for doing this, we will stifle our ability to get a true view of the situation. Users need to accept that fact that everyone is not going to agree about the issues at hand. Being annoyed at users that state a different opinions is understandable, but something that users need to work through themselves if they are going to involve themselves in Wikipedia disputes. FloNight 13:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Put it like this... arbitration is dispute resolution. Statements by Serge, Yaksha, Wknight, myself, and arguably even Elonka, indicate that the dispute is not, at the moment, resolved. However, it is plausible that the dispute would be resolved by looking at a small number of assertions by each side and ascertaining which of those, if any, are true. >Radiant< 13:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

My main concern is that following the close of this, Elonka will continue to make the same false accusations about other editors, and to make matters worse, she may cite this case as backing her up. Based on Elonka's statements already, it wouldn't surprise me if she interpreted the arbcom's absence of agreement with the other parties, or absence of explicit disagreement with her arguments as the arbcom agreeing with her. If she uses this case for future false accusations or attacks, would the committee have any response or take any action against her? --Milo H Minderbinder 14:24, 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)