307:
to respond to (speaking for myself). In this case, some in the majority has even gone so far as to (quite often) claim that no dispute even existed and denying that more than one person felt marginalized. When members of the apparent minority find procedural failures in the process, they should not be ignored or labeled as "whiners" and "sore losers" for insisting that those failings be addressed. Plus, whether or not other participants felt that their vote had been tainted at the time, the discussion had attracted more people over the weeks of "discussion" and it wouldn't have hurt anybody to have re-started the poll and discussion in a centralized place to encourage the most active, organized, and constructive discussion with a broader range of participants. Yes, the poll certainly isn't the determining factor - the discussion obviously is. However, the discussion was, in many ways, overly aggressive, positional, and unconstructive, and it was noted several times that it was intimidating/difficult/confusing for newcomers to join. Dissenters (and supporters!) should have been given a better, more reasonable opportunity to both vote AND join in a clean discussion. If they were still the minority, then fine - at least the majority can rest easy knowing that they "won" fairly and the minority can at least know that they did the best they could to explain and express their position(s). I honestly believe that this conflict would never have progressed this far if the “majority” had behaved in a more respectful way and put forth more effort to embrace principles of fairness and civility.
303:(more rhetorical) angle for consideration, in regards to the behavior of some members of the “majority” and why I found it to be so problematic. In the wikipedia context, decisions are supposed to be made through discussions resulting in either consensus or supermajority support. In any situation where decisions and policy are reached in a democratic (or pseudo-democratic) manner, a majority-minority dynamic is likely to exist. In such a case, it is tempting and easy for the apparent majority to force their way through things and stamp out dissent. Accordingly, those in the majority of a discussion-based process should have some responsibilities along with their power - the responsibility to listen to the minority, the responsibility to be respectful, and the responsibility to be open to new ideas or new voices as they emerge (as further discussions from a broader range of individuals can overturn or challenge localized Knowledge consensus), and the responsibility to assure that the decision was reached fairly in the first place. Procedural fairness – and the perception of procedural fairness – should be valued by all wikipedians, and not be treated so lightly. While this particular naming convention issue may have little importance in the grand scheme of things, the issues of majority behavior and procedural fairness involve principles that have much broader application. I felt that the "dissent" was trying to say this the whole time and nobody was really listening.
514:"reasonably clear" (80% supermajority over a relatively minor issue) but a vocal minority engaged in move warring and disruption. We all agree to operate on consensus, and in most cases policy discussions sort of peter out when the parties get bored, or realize they are losing, and find other things to do, leaving the active particpants to implement the consensus result. Here there was a small but very vocal minority that did not accept the result, possibly because the people who were telling them that they lost were the people they had been arguing with all along, and possibly because there is no "official" way to close a policy discussion. (Unlike XfD, where there is a clear procedure for ending the discussion, announcing the result, and implementing it.) The arbitration remedy authorizes the participants in a debate to close it when consensus is demonstrably achieved, and announce and implement the result. (Although, with all due respect to Fred and the other arbitrators, I think it should have said "uninvolved" editors or admins, and I would hope that in future situations, a majority faced with a vocal and upset minority would seek outside help.)
104:, and I have seen little to no intervention by admins to admonish people to stay civil. It seems like anything goes, and any outside observer would clearly see that a number of edits by people involved in the dispute have been retaliatory and vindictive, in that they've touched and challenged unrelated articles that were edited by their "enemies". I view this behavior as shameful, even if any particular challenge is "right" in terms of principle.
311:
process, and discourage open discussion. It is just something to think about, and I hope that those individual editors who inflamed the discussion with unnecessary rudeness are officially encouraged to keep their tempers in better check. That’s my 2 cents, anyway. I wish everyone the best of luck, and I am sure that wikipedia will benefit substantially when everyone’s attention can be more fully directed toward editing!
611:. Furthermore, common sense dictates that a clear consensus followed by a definitive closing will be easy. If necessary, ask an impartial closer to do the deed, stating that you'll respect their common sense judgment. To this day, I've only encounter one closing that, using this method, seemed at all inaccurate.
709:
Well, given that the MoS doesn't appear to correspond to what article editors are actually doing in practice, it's somewhat questionable whether it (still) enjoys consensus in this case. I would suggest starting a (widely publicized—try leaving notes with the relevant WikiProjects, and on the talk
691:
where the binary representation is more accurate. This guideline was adopted by consensus some time ago, but recently was disputed after a newer editor attempted to actually make the recommended changes, and those changes were reverted (in many cases while being called "vandalism".) The dispute has
310:
Elonka has done a fine job of gathering rude and uncivil remarks that have been made throughout this discussion, I don’t really have anything to add,. I bring this up only because I feel that the tone and steady stream of rude comments bring down
Knowledge as a whole, and turn people away from the
306:
In this case, the original poll was flawed and many at the time supported (for one reason or another) another poll. The discussion that followed was inflamed, tense, and often rude, and consisted of rapid-fire responses spanning several different pages. It was difficult to follow and intimidating
302:
Having never been involved in an arbitration before, I am not sure if my statement is relevant and I don’t have the time to become a “party” and build a case – others are doing a good, comprehensive job. I came to this discussion late and haven’t posted lately, but I just wanted to present another
479:
As Fred Bauder said, the gauging of consensus is not something that lends itself well to hard line rules. That is why we have a special permission for users that guage consensus in promotions - bureaucrats (they do other things, too, but that's why the permission was created IIRC). It's a tricky
355:
An established and respected user who is not an administrator could close a discussion. An extended policy discussion is one in which most aspects of the question has been discussed, alternatives considered, in short, a full discussion. Good judgement is needed to determine when consensus has been
183:
Look PKtm, it's obviouse that some people aren't pleased by your behaviour. And it doesn't seem like you're pleased about how other people are acting either. So how about you sum up your 'statement' here and put it to the evidence page - the place where the ArbCom are likely to take notice of your
91:
Various claims have been made in this dispute that the poll didn't matter because discussion ensued. I would like to go on record here as being one of the people who chose not to participate at all in the original poll (and who actually still hasn't taken a side on the substance of the argument),
400:
Jeff got me thinking, and.. that's not really useful. It's basically saying "If you think you're right then say so and tell everyone to shut up". Won't everyone think they're right in a discussion/dispute/etc? If the situation is reasonably clear one way or the other then we usually don't have to
565:
case decision, and
Thatcher is still move and edit warring over it, so please enforce the decision by blocking Thatcher until he gets the message." At least it clearly puts the burden of proof on the minority to show that a consensus was not reached, rather than on the majority to prove that
198:
I don't think that would be a good idea at all. The discussion is personal enough already. let's keep this Arb as focused as at all possible. So many people insulted and were insulted there is no point in discussing the insults anymore if you ask me. Let's try to keep to Naming conventions -
531:
Well, a good many of us thought it was obvious from day one, but a big problem was how it appeared to people outside of the debate (specifically, how it was being represented outside of the debate). Not only that, but more than once we had "announced" an end/consensus during the debate, so
657:
Broadly speaking, anything that matches established community practice and is relatively uncontroversial can be assumed to enjoy a community consensus, regardless of where it happens to be written down. I would be wary, however, of extending that to those points in the MoS that
63:
I think it's about consensus - whether it was reached. And also possibly about whether wikiprojects have the power to trump naming conventions. The result i'm hoping for is just a decleration that we got consensus, and that people should respect consensus.
265:
184:
words and deal with it as they see fit. Because your unlikely to get a response here, and in my personal opinion...making allegations here like this is only serving to stir up more tension, whether or not this is your intention. --
335:
What sort of expectation is it to close an "extended policy discussion?" At what point is it "extended," and at what stage is it okay to throw in the towel? At an arbitrary moment or simply when the discussion becomes
97:
536:
do the very thing suggested. I understand and agree with the meaning of the statement, but this statement as a tool to help avoid such conflicts in the future doesn't seem very helpful to me. --
133:
I believe that the ongoing extremely personal nature of the discussion and the general behavior in this dispute have driven participation away, and want to voice that belief. As I've stated,
356:
reached or when it is obvious there is no consensus. When the discussion becomes disruptive, more heat than light, it is probably past time to close the discussion and declare a result.
429:
involved a matter where there was a consensus, but no closing. Based on lack of closing, an opposition party engaged in move warring. That was the problem we were trying to address.
130:
Maybe I'm still new here, but still, I've amassed some 2,500 edits in a little over a year. Yet, I have never seen a discussion on
Knowledge go quite so badly in terms of civility.
636:
426:
321:
269:
149:
Per my comment above about ongoing incivility, in many cases perpetrated and perpetuated by WP admins: see the utter disrespect and the "them against us" attitude espoused
328:
The final decision notes that "It is the responsibility of the administrators and other responsible parties to close extended policy discussions they are involved in."
680:
480:
business, but not unsurmountable. When in doubt, further discussion can never hurt. Requests for third (or hundredth) opinions can be useful. Cheers, ✎
137:, I am greatly curtailing my editing in Knowledge as a result of this dispute and the behavior I've seen, particularly on the part of some admins.
17:
100:, fell very quickly into personal attacks and highly bitter interactions in general. This chronic incivility continues even now, as exemplified
379:
The subject does not lend itself to bright line rules. The question is whether the question has been fully discussed and a decision reached.
401:
resort to something like this to end it. The situations this is supposed to be helpful in are usually too unclear to actually use this. --
192:
111:
Subsequently, I was disheartened from future participation both by the ongoing, unmitigated tone of the overall discussion and then by
743:
722:
696:
670:
651:
620:
570:
540:
518:
501:
462:
433:
405:
383:
374:
360:
349:
315:
291:
276:
246:
233:
216:
172:
168:. The same admin who dismissed my points as "hit and run allegations" now dismisses my concerns as an "appeal to pity". --
157:
143:
72:
58:
45:
36:
I thought guideline interpretation but it has certainly shifted to more personal issues - and that's putting it lightly. —
30:
662:
match actual community practice (and there are a few, usually on the more obscure MoS pages) unless there has been an
208:
616:
692:
not reached the level of a consensus to change the guideline. Are there any recommendations for such a situation?
488:
55:
370:
345:
605:
482:
54:
have consensus? The whole situation is just a couple editors refusing to accept an obvious consensus. --
458:
I guess that's one way to look at it, but the solution offered still isn't helpful. Nothing personal. --
366:
341:
612:
567:
515:
221:
Indications are that this proceeding will be more geared towards "user conduct" than naming conventions
27:
561:
and say: "see, here we discussed a policy, and here's the consensus, and here we announced it per the
719:
667:
595:
287:
229:
41:
740:
693:
648:
647:, be treated as a community consensus until and unless consensus is established to change them?
272:
so probably doesn't know this. He should probably be given a chance to explain his actions. --
127:, when I voiced my opinion on how the dispute was going and my dismay at people's behavior.
51:
430:
380:
357:
239:
185:
65:
710:
pages of some prominent articles) discussion with the intent of figuring out what the MoS
204:
714:
say on the topic (rather than the somewhat narrower yes/no question of whether what it
537:
459:
402:
312:
283:
225:
112:
37:
644:
494:
261:
50:
In spite of all the details and side complaints, I think it just comes down to: Does
26:
Is this arbitration about disruptive behavior, guideline interpretation, or both? --
558:
273:
212:
683:
on binary prefixes. This section states that the use of XiB prefixes (such as
200:
169:
154:
140:
84:
557:
It's better than nothing? At this point you can take a future conflict to
688:
238:
Inappropriate user conduct makes up a large portion of this problem. --
591:
Definitive closing should involve using clear closing methods such as
684:
115:'s immediate, defensive, and then very personal attacks on me
679:
In this case, what brought the question on was a section in
643:
Should existing guidelines, such as those presented in the
222:
165:
150:
134:
124:
120:
116:
101:
427:
Knowledge:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions
322:
Knowledge:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions
107:
The poll was a moving target, with lots of changes.
687:) should be used rather than notation such as
681:Knowledge:Manual of style (dates and numbers)
8:
96:The dispute, as well documented in the
18:Knowledge talk:Requests for arbitration
365:So nothing really specific, per se? --
264:'s conduct is being discussed at the
7:
635:Request for clarification regarding
739:Will do. Thank you for your help.
510:Ned, in this situation the result
24:
666:consensus that they be adopted.
179:Response (to PKtm's 'statement')
87:, a relatively uninvolved party
332:What is a "responsible party?"
1:
247:03:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
234:02:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
217:01:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
193:07:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
173:06:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
158:00:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
144:22:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
73:23:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
59:19:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
46:19:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
31:18:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
744:13:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
723:13:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
697:13:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
671:13:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
652:11:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
621:02:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
571:05:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
541:05:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
519:00:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
502:00:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
463:04:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
434:03:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
406:05:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
384:01:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
375:01:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
361:22:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
350:22:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
316:23:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
178:
83:Statement for the record by
292:21:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
277:21:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
766:
282:I left him/her a note. —
559:arbitration enforcement
298:Statement by Riverbend
213:WikiProject Television
153:. Very dismaying. --
92:for two main reasons:
268:, but he's not under
56:Milo H Minderbinder
718:says is correct).
637:Naming Conventions
566:consensus exists.
563:Naming Conventions
496:Neutrality Project
266:/Proposed decision
639:consensus finding
373:
348:
757:
613:Ace Class Shadow
610:
604:
600:
594:
500:
497:
491:
485:
369:
344:
270:Involved parties
244:
190:
70:
765:
764:
760:
759:
758:
756:
755:
754:
645:Manual of Style
641:
608:
602:
598:
592:
532:technically we
495:
489:
483:
481:
326:
300:
259:
240:
186:
181:
89:
66:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
763:
761:
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
720:Kirill Lokshin
702:
701:
700:
699:
674:
673:
668:Kirill Lokshin
640:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
524:
523:
522:
521:
505:
504:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
367:badlydrawnjeff
342:badlydrawnjeff
338:
337:
333:
325:
319:
299:
296:
295:
294:
258:
255:
254:
253:
252:
251:
250:
249:
180:
177:
176:
175:
161:
160:
138:
109:
108:
105:
88:
81:
80:
79:
78:
77:
76:
75:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
762:
745:
742:
741:Seraphimblade
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
724:
721:
717:
713:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
698:
695:
694:Seraphimblade
690:
686:
682:
678:
677:
676:
675:
672:
669:
665:
661:
656:
655:
654:
653:
650:
649:Seraphimblade
646:
638:
634:
622:
618:
614:
607:
606:archivebottom
597:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
572:
569:
564:
560:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
542:
539:
535:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
520:
517:
513:
509:
508:
507:
506:
503:
498:
492:
486:
484:Peter M Dodge
478:
477:
464:
461:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
435:
432:
428:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
407:
404:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
385:
382:
378:
377:
376:
372:
368:
364:
363:
362:
359:
354:
353:
352:
351:
347:
343:
336:"disruptive?"
334:
331:
330:
329:
324:clarification
323:
320:
318:
317:
314:
308:
304:
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
280:
279:
278:
275:
271:
267:
263:
262:User:Izzy Dot
256:
248:
245:
243:
237:
236:
235:
231:
227:
223:
220:
219:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
197:
196:
195:
194:
191:
189:
174:
171:
167:
163:
162:
159:
156:
152:
148:
147:
146:
145:
142:
136:
131:
128:
126:
122:
118:
114:
106:
103:
99:
95:
94:
93:
86:
82:
74:
71:
69:
62:
61:
60:
57:
53:
49:
48:
47:
43:
39:
35:
34:
33:
32:
29:
19:
715:
711:
663:
659:
642:
562:
533:
511:
339:
327:
309:
305:
301:
260:
241:
187:
182:
132:
129:
110:
90:
67:
25:
568:Thatcher131
516:Thatcher131
431:Fred Bauder
381:Fred Bauder
358:Fred Bauder
164:And again,
596:archivetop
490:Talk to Me
340:Thanks. --
716:currently
538:Ned Scott
460:Ned Scott
403:Ned Scott
313:Riverbend
284:Wknight94
226:Wknight94
113:Wknight94
38:Wknight94
689:megabyte
664:explicit
257:Izzy Dot
209:contribs
98:Evidence
617:My talk
274:h2g2bob
242:`/aksha
188:`/aksha
68:`/aksha
52:TV:NAME
712:should
123:, and
660:don't
201:TheDJ
28:Serge
16:<
601:and
371:talk
346:talk
288:talk
230:talk
205:talk
170:PKtm
166:here
155:PKtm
151:here
141:PKtm
135:here
125:here
121:here
117:here
102:here
85:PKtm
42:talk
685:MiB
534:did
512:was
224:. —
139:--
619:.
615:;
609:}}
603:{{
599:}}
593:{{
493:•
487:(
290:)
232:)
215:)
211:•
207:•
119:,
64:--
44:)
499:)
286:(
228:(
203:(
40:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.