Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Evidence

message: The opening of this evidence page says "Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words".  Accoring to MS Word, Elonka's is already at 1,370 with a section yet to begin.  Have we thrown out that limitation?  —Wknight94 (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AGF please. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's of no use.  Can someone actually answer my question please?  I'm trying to squeeze into 1,000 words but I won't bother if I'm the only one. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Relax, it's only been like 2 hours.  Like I said in the Waldorf arb case, the arbitrators have requested concise evidence presentations.  I won't go so far as to say that they pay less attention to long unfocused presentations, not being a mind reader, but I feel safe in saying that having the longest evidence section does not give you an advantage.  I just checked and my evidence here is about 1400 words, and I think it was about right for the case I was trying to make.  I think the main thing is to encourage evidence over argumentation.  You should take as much space as you need to say what you need to say, but be focused and concise and let the diffs speak for themselves as much as you can. Hope this helps, and you can always ask the clerks for advice. Thatcher131 02:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note, my last post was not impatience at no one answering, it was impatience with MatthewFenton's trademark unhelpful snide response.  I should have added emphasis, "Can someone actually answer my question please?" —Wknight94 (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's ok.  I do look in on things quite often, but you caught me at choir practice, and thank heavens my cell phone is too old and outdated to do web surfing. Thatcher131 02:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence Length

message: Are we allowed to add comments to other people's evidence sections? Or can we only argue against another editor's "evidence" in our own evidence sections?
Because the evidence provided by a certain editor includes a 2-word-long quote from a talk page message that has been taken completely out of context.  --`/aksha 11:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please only edit your own section, but you can certainly add a subsection Reply to Editor X Thatcher131 12:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rebuttal 

message: Is there a recommended procedure for new (involved or uninvolved) parties to offer a statement?. Should they just start a section at the evidence page and state their view of things, or should they be posting somewhere else? I'm not sure how to best advise them. --Elonka 21:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: General comments go at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions.  Specific evidence goes on the evidence page in a new section. Thatcher131 21:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside parties

message: Thatcher, could you please give some guidance on timing?  I've been spending hours each day on providing evidence, but Christmas is intruding, and my wiki-time is probably going to be curtailed over the next couple weeks (like when I'm driving cross-country to spend time with family).  With the quantity of posts that are coming in from the "glued to their watchlist" editors, I'm getting a bit concerned that I have to make time for Wikipedia each day.  In other words, I'm worried that I'm going to spend a day Christmas shopping, and then I'm going to login the next day and see something like, "Well, Elonka didn't post yesterday, so she obviously doesn't care anymore."  There have been multiple other accusations like that through this process, like Wknight94's accusations that I was exhibiting "passive incivility" by not posting, or his accusation that my posting only once per day was "inflammatory," or Ace Class Shadow saying that since I hadn't answered his question within 7 hours, I obviously didn't care anymore. I still have a fair amount of evidence I'd like to present, so, can you please advise as to how hard I need to be working to participate on Wikipedia every day throughout the holidays?  Or is it a case that the arbitrators are going to be busy too, so we should work on providing evidence when we can, but the substantive discussions won't be happening until January anyway?  I know that ArbCom proceedings tend to take months, but some advice on how much wiki-time that I need to personally budget for the next couple weeks would be helpful. --Elonka 19:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When did I say you were uncivil for not posting?  What I actually said was that when you finally did post, you didn't acknowledge many of the legitimate points and hints that were made by many people while you were absent.  Two totally different concepts...  —Wknight94 (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd second this - the complaints about not responding to proposals and not answering questions were generally not because posting didn't happen fast enough, but because responses were posted, but they ignored what had been asked.  If there are diffs that truly are about not responding fast enough, I'd like to see them.  --Milo H Minderbinder 21:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Diff of Ace Class Shadow complaining that I hadn't posted within "several hours": . --Elonka 11:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In that diff, he observes that you haven't posted in several hours.  But I don't see how you could interpret that as complaining that you haven't posted by any stretch of the imagination?  --Milo H Minderbinder 15:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't really know what to expect from the arbitrators over the holidays.  Fred is working on the Waldorf case and there are two more ahead of you, so I would guess he will not get to this one for at least two weeks.  We will also have new arbitrators and they may change procedures; I don't know.  You should get all your evidence in place before the arbitrators start concentrating on this case; they will generally look more at editor behavior than precise details of content issues, if that helps to focus your efforts.  Other than a direct question from the arbitrators, which they ocassionally ask, there is certainly no hurry in responding to workshop proposals.   You don't have to respond at all unless you want to. Thatcher131 00:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Look at the proposed decision and see if you can live with it.  If you think there is something drastic missing, or want clarification, post to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Proposed decision‎.  You can also try contacting the arbitrators who have already voted  to see if they would be open to additional remedies, but usually at this stage what's there is there, unless you can make a case that something major is missing. Thatcher131 19:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Christmas

message: Couldn't help but point this out, but Izzy Dot is the one who formatted the RfC for a poll, not Argash. -- Ned Scott 20:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. --Elonka 22:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please correct my username as well. I'll accept just plain Anthony if hitting Alt-0254 is too hard, but please not "Anpony". –  Anþony  talk  23:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Elonka's section on the poll 

message: I'm not sure what's the best way to respond to it, but I don't think the "List of involved parties" is an accurate picture of my "stand" at all.  Based on the way Elonka has misrepresented my position in the past, and made false accusations, I suspect the same goes for others mentioned as well.  The section isn't really even evidence since it just makes generalizations about "gangs" of people without any actual diffs to back it up - "evidence" seems like it should be pointing out specific actions and statements of an individual, not sweeping generalizations about groups of editors.  Is there any point in refuting any of it, or will it likely be ignored by the arbcom folk?  --Milo H Minderbinder 17:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a question each has to answer on their own.  Personally I say no and it's not even worth rebutting.  If anything, labelling and generalizing everyone involved makes her look bad and I kind of hope she leaves it in.  Its very existence might even be worth using as evidence of inappropriate characterizing (and it came from some subpage under user area so it's been in the works).  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case#Context and the ArbCom: "The ArbCom members do not read up on disputes that might reach them eventually. It is very unlikely they know the history of the dispute going on — that someone is a known advocate of a point of view, that someone has a history of defending problem users, or that everybody who has ever dealt with a user recognizes them to be a complete lunatic. Point these things out to them.". --Elonka 18:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Copy/paste error, sorry.  Fixed. --Elonka 00:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the fix, although I don't see how those diffs support any of the claims you make above them.  --Milo H Minderbinder 00:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of involved parties 

message: Is there going to be more evidence to support this one?  I've been dying to have this "disruption" finally pointed out after having it mentioned so often.  All the three diffs in this section show is some people complaining, which is not disruption, is it?  And that complaining comes from a grand total of two people not already involved in this discussion.  The diff for the wire shows that the only complaining in that case came from Elonka.  Seriously, the evidence of disruption is "Hey look, I complained!"?  You've shown minor dissent (incredibly minor, considering that as you pointed out, hundreds of pages have been moved), now where's the actual disruption?  --Milo H Minderbinder 16:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that the ArbCom will agree with you.  When someone you disagree with comes up with junky evidence, that's a good thing!  :)  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I'm just curious if she just hasn't got around to adding diffs for the "real" evidence, or if she actually thinks those three help her case more than they hurt it.  --Milo H Minderbinder 17:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the silence persists, that will be your answer.  ;D  —Wknight94 (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Controversial moves were causing disruption in many areas around Wikipedia"