Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Workshop

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Are 1RR and 0RR incompatible with BRD?

Under BRD there should be a bold edit, then one revert followed by discussion. Many edit wars occur when the bold editor (or another editor) reverts the revert instead of discussing it. I don't see how either 0RR or 1RR ensures that BRD process is followed. 0RR prevents anyone from reverting a bold edit so it remains in place (for 24 hours at least). 1RR allows one revert of a bold edit and then allows the bold editor one revert (of the revert) to restore the bold edit but disallows the initial reverter from reverting the bold restoration (since it would be the initial reverter's second revert). Under either 0RR or 1RR, the bold edit will remain and no discussion need occur - basically either a BRD (0RR) or a BRRD (1RR) process. I hope I am misunderstanding this, but if not, how would 0RR or 1RR policies help us in this case? Jojalozzo 00:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

0RR is inconsistent, 1RR is not; the discussion should take place beginning with the first revert. Either restriction gives an advantage (although often a temporary one) to new wording, as does 3RR; I believe that is intentional. JCScaliger (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok. So we are mainly looking at 0RR or 1RR to reduce churning. These restrictions don't encourage BRD, though 1RR still allows for it. And 1RR doesn't address the main problem I have seen where the bold editor restores the reverted content instead of discussion. Jojalozzo 01:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

We should mostly look at it to reduce WP:OWN violations; banning the egregious WP:OWN violators is only a start, since all too many MOS regulars have picked up the same bad habits. No, they don't encourage BRD; that's why I've proposed 1RR if and only if the reverter discusses. JCScaliger (talk) 03:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Authority of policy

Several proposals are intended to prevent people from making up their own policy and then enforcing it everywhere. I don't think there is any substitute for stopping that problem at its source: watch policy and guideline pages, revert anything that's too bossy without sufficient consensus, and find enough like-minded editors to overcome any cliques. Rules that say policy isn't policy introduce a contradiction that could fuel endless debate about whether anything really means anything any more. Sure, policy should reflect consensus, but that's all the more reason to watch that policy to make sure it really does reflect consensus. Art LaPella (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Too late. Much bossiness is already written in, and some editors will read bossiness into text which doesn't have it. The series of moves on capitalization are (quite literally) being justified by "Per WP:MOSCAPS" when the only relevant sentence to many of them is "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization".

Once something is written into the enormous mass of MOS and its subpages, and has sat there for three to six months, the pedant who wrote it will claim that it "needs consensus to alter a guideline" and of course he will never consent. Two or three of these acting together, and we have - well - the present problem. JCScaliger (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that MOS isn't Policy, any of it. I don't see any proposal to make it so; did its fans suspect that such a proposal would lead to having to show actual consensus for the text? JCScaliger (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)