Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-01-21/Arbitration report
Discuss this story
- Ed. note: the talk page was cleared while publishing, per our usual practice. The previous comments can be read here. Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this coverage is professional or useful. Probably no coverage is what I would prefer, for any ongoing mediation or arbitration case.
Yes, the linked list is one of two hate/attack pages developed by Orlady, singularly focused upon me, that I name in the Evidence. It is not "presumably"; i specifically name that as one of the two pages. Providing link to it here extends the effect of the hate/attack page, I think.
The issue is longterm harassment and bullying, is how I feel the arbitration could better have been titled, or longterm contention perhaps being neutral. The naming of the arbitration to be about me is circular, it makes it relatively more about me than about Orlady, Nyttend, SarekOfVulcan, other named parties, and the naming is itself biasing.
I didn't comment within this article's "clearing"; I feel my comments in the last Signpost's similar clearing didn't have useful effect. Last Signpost's coverage garbled (in my opinion) coverage of naming issue, suggesting too much that I would assume the arbitration committee members would be swayed by the biased naming. The naming is an obvious general problem, easily remedied by using an acronym or a number, and the academic research on anchoring and other biases is completely clear, in addition to the obvious effect of naming attracting different participants, so IMHO generally the naming policy should be changed. Name choice should not be the privilege of the opening disputant. I did not, however, say that I prejudged this arbitration committee's decision. The Signpost coverage should not be open to editing by arbitration participants, including me. The Signpost coverage should not take a stance either way. --doncram 19:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)