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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Should there be something about "consensus can change"?

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Finding 

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

text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Motion to Close