Doncram case continues: The opening of the Doncram case marks the end of almost 6 months without any open cases, the longest in the history of the Committee.
The opening of the Doncram case marks the end of almost 6 months without any open cases, the longest in the history of the Committee.
SarekOfVulcan filed the case last week in an attempt to remedy what he perceived as Doncram's continued unconstructive editing after the failure of previous community discussions and long-term bans. In his statement, he states that it was a combination of mass creation of unchecked content transferred from foreign databases, edit warring, refusal to work with editors due to personal grudges (in particular Orlady), mischaracterisation of other editors and their editing history and personal attacks which led to his filing the case. He also notes that while Doncram is a long-standing editor, he has had disputes with other editors over the content he produces and how he reacts to being challenged.
In his response, Doncram indicated his reluctance to come forward to the committee; however, he believes it is necessary in order to settle what he perceived as the uncivil behaviour Orlady and other editors have exhibited toward him. He goes on to criticise SarekOfVulcan for filing ANI reports with "inflammatory titles" which target him and requested that the case's title be altered to reflect the source of the contention: "long-term bullying and harassment."
He states that past ANI and AFD submissions, "other unpleasantness" and "attack pages" maintained by Orlady (presumably User:Orlady/List) contributed to the "battleground atmosphere." In particular, he named both Orlady and SarekOfVulcan as the "primary instigators of bullying." He believes that it is because he is a "prolific editor" not "unduly concerned" about criticism that he is targeted. Towards the latter part of his response, he called for an interaction ban for Orlady and the deletion of her "attack pages" and a similar remedy for SarekOfVulcan.
In response to Doncram's concerns, arbitrator AGK reassured him that the naming of the case has no bearing on the process of arbitration and because Doncram is linked to all the issues that it bears the eponym. Doncram responded by citing this comment made by Hammersoft as being evidence to the contrary. And despite assurances from AGK that the case would be dealt with in an unbiased fashion, he believes that those trained to overcome potential bias, and by extension, the drafting arbitrators are influenced by "anchoring and related psychological biases."
Evidence submissions close on the 24th. The workshop will be closed and proposed decisions posted on the 28th.
Discuss this story
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)[reply]