Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Evidence

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Any editor is entitled to add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. Create your own section and do not edit another editor's section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs. It is more effective to make succinct, detailed submissions, and submissions of longer than 500 words are usually not as helpful (and may also be removed at any time). Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerk without warning. Focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and on diffs which show the nature of the dispute.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent; see simple diff and link guide.

General discussion of the case will not be accepted on this page, and belongs on the talk page. The Arbitration Committee expects that all rebuttals of other evidence submissions will be included in your own section and will explain how the evidence is incorrect. Please do not refactor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, only an Arbitrator or Clerk may move it.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by Mike Cline

Current word length: 390; diff count: 0.

This is a pure and simple failure of WP policy

I routinely work on Requested Moves and have been extensively involved with WP:Title for several years (mostly monitoring the discussion but stepping in occassionaly on policy improvement discussions). I recently wrote this Holistic View of WP titles and this My ideal titling policy. Policy ought to be simple to apply and interpret, but over the last few years we've created a policy page that is nothing more than a bunch of conflicting Babel that is poorly interpreted, selectively interpreted, and under constant threat of change when one editor or another needs a bit of policy wording to support their pet ideas. So my first assertion is very clear, our titling policy is dysfunctional. My second assertion here, is that any bad behavior on the part of editors surrounding our titling policy is a direct result of the policy wording and its application. If any answer is the right answer and no answer is wrong and that can be supported by policy, then editors will eventually behave badly when they are trying to defend their little view of the world based on policy. Its complicated by the fact that 6 or 7 editors can agree on something over the objections of 4 or 5 others and claim Community Consensus for a community of 136,000 editors. Our titling policy has put our editors in impossible positions. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

My solution reccomendation

The solution to this is simple but will take some work. We can't fix the dysfunctional policy overnight. But we can stem the bleeding. I strongly favor protecting the policy page from any edits for 1 year. I am pretty confident that if WP:Titles did not change one word for the next 365 days, WP would go on, and all the energy devoted to essentially meaningless policy debate, could be diverted to building the encyclopedia. I would also conduct an RFC that might run for many months in a very structured way to completely examine and reformulate our titling policy so that titles can be decided simply and with a holistic view. We will never be able to grow this encyclopedia from 3.9M articles to ~5-10M articles over the next decade if we don't fix the Babel we now call our titling policy. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

One day, a disciple asked Confucius: “If a king were to entrust you with a territory which you could govern according to your ideas, what would you do first?” Confucius replied: “My first task would certainly be to rectify the names.” The puzzled disciple asked: “Rectify the names?…Is this a joke?” Confucius replied: “If the names are not correct, if they do not match realities, language has no object. If language is without an object, action becomes impossible - and therefore all human affairs disintegrate and their management becomes pointless and impossible. Hence, the very first task of a true statesman is to rectify the names.”

— The Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British Official Use

Our first task is to rectify the policy. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Evidence presented by JCScaliger

Current word length: 487; diff count: 52.

A series of moves and move requests

• • Talk:Halley's Comet/Archive 3#Requested move. Requested by Dicklyon, to Halley's comet, on the ground that MOSCAPS requires it. Supported by 4 editors (Tony, Dicklyon, Noetica, and a very curious edit by FoxCE - which gives no reason.) Opposed by seven, with extensive citation of sources.
    • FoxCE's ninth edit, his eighth pontificates on Wikipedia style and agrees with Tony and Dicklyon on another of these contestible edits.
  • Talk:French_Quarter#Requested_move:_.22French_Quarter_.28New_Orleans.29.22. Requested by Noetica, "in accordance with WP:TITLE". Tony, Noetica, and Dicklyon support on the ground that French Quarter and French quarter mean the same thing. Fails about 5-9.
  • Talk:Catholic Memorial School (West Roxbury, Massachusetts)#Requested move (to Catholic Memorial School. Here Dicklyon, Tony, and Noetica oppose (for once joined by others). Not moved. About 14-8 to move.
    • Closed twice.
    • Noetica writes about a minority weakening Wikipedia, makes two personal attacks on Powers [1][2], comparing him to the programmed behavior of an insect, explains the metaphor (no sign of retraction; Tony calls it a lovely explanation), complains of people failing to answer direct questions, protests reopening of discussion, and asserts special authority for "MOS specialists". )
• Talk:Central_Provident_Fund#Requested_move Moved by Tony to parenthetical; moved back by RM, TDN oppose. Noetica edits Dicklyon's comment.
• Talk:Colombiana_(film)#Requested_move_2 Opposed by TDN and one other editor. Still open.

Article titles

• Familiarity was consensus.
  • Original discussion of predisambiguation; Tony's proposal, supported by TDN, Ohconfucius, Kwamikagami; opposed by at least as many.
  • first mention of familiarity
  • Familiarity supported by five editors, opposed by TN
  • First poll unanimous to support familiarity; Dicklyon proposes a widely accepted compromise, including the word.
  • Greg L makes another compromise proposal including familiarity. No objection to it.
  • Statements observing consensus on 24 Jan.: Dohn joe, Greg L, jenks24.
  • Comment by Bkonrad supporting "stonewalling"
  • Second poll. Unanimous.
  • Third poll. Comments at workshop.

• • Permalink to TITLE
  • full history
• Reversions to remove familiarity or restore tags.
  • Noetica: [3] [4][5][6][7][8][9][10] (Six of these after Noetica's last edit to the talk page)
  • Noetica reverts tag [11][12][13][14][15][
  • Tony: [16]
  • Dicklyon reverts: [17][18]
  • Kwamikagami:[19][20]
  • Kwamikagami protects Noetica's version [21][22]

MOSCAPS

• Dicklyon rewrites lead, with some not entirely friendly discussion; Dec. 2011.
• Dicklyon's edit summary indicates that following sources is normal
• Noetica rewrites again.
• objections to "unnecessary capitalization" by Kotniski, Johnbod, A. di M., Enric Naval, and JVScaliger. Defended by TDN.
• Tony paraphrases lead to mean "unless there is a good reason" No objection to the idea; suggestions to say that.
• Tony reverts on proper names
• Noetica reverts lead twice
• Tony reverts calling Noetica's version "well-established"
• Noetica reverts again but does not discuss
• Dicklyon reverts to Noetica's version; and to his own version
• JCScaliger makes a novel edit on "good reason"
• Jojalozzo supports "good reason" and makes suggestions.
• JCScaliger implements most of them (and discusses the other one)

WP:Consensus

• Noetica changes policy without discussion.
• discussion several days later; three editors discuss. Noetica supports, two oppose.
• Noetica reverts: [23], [24][25]
• Dicklyon reverts:[26].

SarekOfVulcan's evidence

It isn't that hard if you read the page itself from top to bottom. There was only one episode of undoing other people's edits, and it is fully documented in the recriminations.

Evidence presented by SMcCandlish

Current word length: 44; diff count: 0. I've deleted mine, as I believe it will cloud the debate more than help the case. That, and process is too processy here; I have better things to do that try to convert 7 years of evidence into diffs. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 15:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Jojalozzo

Current word length: 488; diff count: 15.

Policy and MOS harmed by Bold

Three related problems I have experienced that might be relevant for this case are

1. non-trivial changes to policy and the MOS made without proper consensus development,
2. modification of policy/MOS by those involved in disputes they consider flawed by unclear, conflicting or incorrect wording of policy/MOS and
3. thrashing in policy/MOS pages where disputed content is modified and reverted so frequently that the policy or guidelines is unusable.

Evidence can be found in the last two months' history at WP:TITLE and WP:MOSCAPS. A large proportion of the activity in that period has been disputed and should not have occurred (including contributions by me at MOSCAPS). I expect others are compiling lists of diffs so I will not duplicate their efforts but let me know if you need me to provide them.

To those whose main contributions are content, a general understanding of policy and style guidelines is sufficient but for those whose efforts emphasize correcting the results of misunderstandings and ignorance of policy/MOS, stability in those areas is critical and bold changes can quickly escalate into edit wars, time suck, and mangled policy and MOS content. Jojalozzo 17:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I was not involved in the events at Title but can present some diffs for what I think illustrate BRD failures and substantial changes made with little or no consensus at MOSCAPS:

• 12/6 04:27, Intro changed to X after discussion on the talk page: [27]
• 1/6 11:54, X is modified [introduces grammar error]: [28]
• 1/7 00:13, Bold edit A made to intro and "under discussion" template added: [29],
  • 1/7 - 1/23, Significant talk page discussion ensues on talk page led by A's author [30]
  • 1/8 - 1/17, Simultaneous c/e sweeps of article body [31]. This is the subject of simultaneous talk page discussions: [32], [33], [34], [35],.
  • 1/16 - 1/21, Talk page discussion (#1) of lead sentence: [36]
  • 1/19 - 1/20, Another talk page discussion (#2) of intro: [37]
• 1/19 13:59, Lead sentence of A removed (per "discussion", I believe referring to #1, started 3 days earlier): [38]
• 1/19 15:40, Lead sentence of A replaced by non-author (me) (as "under discussion"): [39]
• 1/19 16:39, Bold edit B made, replacing intro with a short sentence (per "discussion", I believe referring to #2, started 3 hours earlier): [40],
• 1/19 21:12, A restored by A's author (B characterized as "non-consensual and contentious"): [41],
• 1/19 23:16, B restored by non-author (disputes consensus claim, requests discussion): [42],
• 1/19 23:42, A restored by A's author (asserts A support from "long, patient discussion" and B a product of "negligible discussion"): [43],
• 1/20 01:01, B restored by non-author (B supported by "several well-reasoned arguments"): [44],
• 1/20 6:38, A restored by non-author (asserts B is "undiscussed edit of long-standing guidance"): [45]
• 1/21 19:26, Bold edit C, lead completely deleted by B's author ("remove contested text altogether""): [46],
• 1/21 20:30, A restored by A's author (asserts A is "nearest to consensual") : [47],
  • 1/23 - 1/25 Another talk page discussion of intro: [48]
• 1/26 16:10, Intro reverted to version X by X's author ("so we can talk about ... different directions of changes": [49]

Jojalozzo 06:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Evidence presented by SarekOfVulcan

Current word length: 367; diff count: 8.

Born2cycle edits tendentiously

Born2cycle has repeatedly claimed (most recently here) that WP:BRD stated that the person reverting was required to provide an explanation, when it actually says that if you are bold and your change is reverted, you are required to start the discussion if you still think your edit would be an improvement to the encyclopedia. I pointed this out to him here, to which his reply was "What's not fine is reverting with edit summary "discuss first" (or something similar)" -- showing an extreme case of WP:IDHT. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

B2C has pointed out on my talk that he actually said "(presuming the bold editor seeks discussion/explanation of the edit and revert)" in the diff I quote above, which makes my claim misleading. However, the sheer number of words that he throws at discussions makes it easy to miss nuances like this, which may be another indication of tendentious editing. It's hard to tell when he's making different arguments than he made last time... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

On January 24, Elen of the Roads protected WP:AT at the current version and told B2C on her talkpage that Born2cycle, that means that more people than you need to speak of their own volition, so you need to temper your immediate desire to respond at length to anyone who says anything different to you. I think you've said your piece sufficiently for the moment. 4 hours later, B2C responded there with a 14K, 2-and-a-half page demand that Elen immediately implement the consensus that he saw.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

WT:AT

The history of WP:AT between 12/20 and 1/30 -- 1100 edits -- shows why I brought this to Arbcom. How is anyone supposed to track all that? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Noetica edits tendentiously

Noetica claimed on ANI that there was an urgent need to "protect [Wikipedia:Consensus] to prevent abuse of it for pointy polemical purposes in current action at ArbCom", when he is actually asking for his version to be protected. (He also added a note claiming that it shouldn't be edited because it had been mentioned in this case (by another editor).) When I challenged his claim, pointing out that he was engaging in the behavior he had been accused of here, he stated that it was "an incident that threatens the stability of policy" and that I "must understand the distress and disruption these things can cause in real people's real lives", implying that either I wasn't a real person or didn't have a real life. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Greg L

Current word length: 482; diff count: 0.

Collaborative writing environment undermined by WP:OWN and walls of text

The problem was due to this mix:

• experienced editors who specialize in this area digging in their heels to get their way,
• an editor (B2C) who recognized that there was no consensus for driving that direction,
• B2C creating walls of impenetrable text that made it difficult for anyone to parse his message point,
• personal enmity building between Dicklyon and B2C (B2C created a dirt‑file on Dicklyon and waved it in his face),
• still more walls of text being generated by a small cabal of combatants, and
• → too few outside editors willing to step into the saloon while chairs are flying out the door. ←

The result was breakdown of the collaborative writing environment via…

• WP:OWN,
• WP:Tendentious editing,
• and WP:TLDR.

Leading to…

• WP:DGAF by outsiders,
• made it impossible to discern the community consensus,
• deprived the combatants the pressure-relief valve of moderate outside voices,
• and resulted in editwarring via edits to WP:Article titles and tit-for-tat reversions.

There is no way to provide links that conveniently demonstrate WP:Tendentious editing and WP:TLDR other than to give a single link to the totality. This perma‑link to Wikipedia Talk:Article titles shows the venue shortly after WP:AT was locked down and the poll closed. The totality speaks for itself.

This link of ≤January 2012 / 500 edits of WP:AT shows the edits and reversions to the guideline page when its associated talk page was no longer helping to establish what the community consensus truly was. The link shows who was doing what sort of editing and the edit summaries they left for others.

My enumeration of how many talk-page posts various editors created at one point is here. That is merely the number of posts, not total word count. Nor does it speak to how many posts were primarily personal attacks or were evasive and didn’t speak to the nugget of the disagreement.

Notwithstanding that B2C adds excessive words to talk pages, the poll results show he correctly assessed that a few other editors—who behaved as if they considered themselves experts in the venue—were advocating against consensus. Unfortunately, the manner in which B2C made his point put off not only the opposing camp, but also drove off others. So, while I agree with SarekOfVulcan’s point (responding to this version, in the event it changes), I consider it half the full story; it takes two parties or camps to have editwars and the opposing camp shares responsibility because of its stonewalling and insistence on having its way.

As often happens in ArbCom actions like this, editors argue that the solution is to give them what they want insofar as the atomic-level details of the dispute and all will be well. Differences of opinion happen on Wikipedia—all the time. I submit that the challenge for ArbCom is to find out who was responsible for turning the saloon into a battleground that no one else wanted to enter. Greg L (talk) 04:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Ohconfucius

Current word length: 114; diff count: 3.

I was following at a distance the personal animosity that developed as a result of confrontation at WT:AT and elsewhere, I was unimpressed by the "dirt file" compiled by B2C in his own userspace on a fellow editor and how he used it in a threatening manner. I thus nominated it for deletion. At the MfD, B2C initially objects that I did not engage him on it; he also appears to state, falsely, that he wasn't notified, and creates a wall of text firstly stating how he was not in breach of any policy. Later on, he acknowledges that it was unwise and then blanks the page, allowing for its deletion. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Mangoe

Current word length: 170; diff count: 2.

Edit war at WP:CONSENSUS

The struggle over these issues has moved to WP:CONSENSUS, beginning with these two edits] by JCScaliger. We then see a tug-of-war between JCScaliger, Neotica, and Dicklyon, with other contributions from a few other users not presently named as parties to this case. The focal change is this one in which the requirement to achieve consensus before making big changes to policies/guidelines is removed. This is relevant to the current case given that issue, to a very large degree, revolves around taking the MOS as a guideline and gaming it. Mangoe (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

comment on Eric Haugen's evidence

The hyphens and dashes discussion is not in my opinion a positive precedent, given that it was set up by having ARBCOM step in and force everyone to the table after a widespread and lengthy edit war. Mangoe (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

What concerns me is that it may prove necessary, regularly, for ARBCOM to intervene that there might be reasonable discussion. It would be better if the prerequisite edit war were made superfluous to the process. Mangoe (talk) 05:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Evidence presented by ErikHaugen

Current word length: 66; diff count: 0.

Completely halting all edits to the MOS is not necessary for productive debate to occur

• Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/dash_drafting—A productive discussion involving minimal disruption, spanning a large amount of time and involving many editors

  On user Mangoe's observation—Yes, similar to this case, so it seems reasonable to look at what went well that time, no? In any case, the point remains we have proof that positive discussion is possible without absurd measures like halting all edits for a year. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Dicklyon

Current word length: 252; diff count: 1.

I've been trying to understand what's behind some of the arguments about what the TITLE policy is or should be. So I studied the history of the "recognizability" provision; some findings: Dicklyon (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:TITLE suffered a horrible fate in Sept. 2009

I have summarized the history at User:Dicklyon/Whither Recognizability?#The great turmoil of September 2009. The turmoil that month, leading to a lock on the policy page on Oct. 1, left this policy in a mess from which it has been impossible to recover, especially in the recognizability provision (that's really the only part I looked at carefully over time). '

Capitalization policy was gutted the same month

See User:Dicklyon/Whither Recognizability?#Capitalization in title policy – collateral damage. Kotniski gutted the lower-case title policy in this edit, leading to the current situation where people who don't like lower-case titles complain about MOS:CAPS because the policy about lower casing disappeared from TITLE.

The pattern of making rapid/random changes to policy without first establishing consensus has continued at several venues (including the now-protected WP:TITLE and WP:CONSENSUS). The CAPS confusion is an example of the kind of problem that can accrue when changes to policy are not well vetted, and substantive changes are buried in too-complicated diffs that nobody discusses.

Key TITLE editors are missing here

As mentioned on the talk page Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article_titles_and_capitalisation/Evidence, missing active editors at the TITLE arguments in the last few months are User:Kotniski, User:Pmanderson, User:Philip Baird Shearer, User:Blueboar, and User: Hesperian. These are also among the all-time active editors at TITLE. See editor data at [50] and [51], [52]. The problems at TITLE can't be addressed without understanding the involvement of at least some of these.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.