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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I believe its an even bigger problem that goes beyond MOS isn't policy, because much of what is actually in WP:TITLE isn't policy either, its a bunch of conflicting "how to guidance and essay material" that lends itself to selective interpretation and gets invoked as policy. Combine that with multiple policy elements that in many cases result in intractable alternatives when alternatives are defended with different policy elements. Policy interpretation ought to be unequivocal while its application however is always contextual. The great majority of our policies function this way. WP:CIVIL is unequivocal and easy to interpret--we don't tolerate uncivil behavior. How we deal with it and determining what is civil and what is uncivil is a contextual discussion, but the policy is clear. Other important policies can be seen in the same light--WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, etc. The policy in these is unequivocal and easily interpreted while application is contextual. If we ever want WP:TITLE to function as a clear statement of easily interpreted policy, we've got to rewrite it, because it doesn't function that way today. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that's a good idea, do suggest it on the talk page. I think TITLE does a fairly good joh of summarizing what RM dicussions actually look for (including Recognizability), and that much should be policy, informing the guidelines. But perhaps this will help get to A di M's mininal TiTLE, once the page is unprotected. JCScaliger (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Much bossiness is already written in". Sure; even MOS regulars are usually unaware of their own 1.4 megabytes of MOS including subpages. Let's fix it. If policies or MOS guidelines are unfixable, then we shouldn't have them. The worst of both worlds is to have policies and guidelines, and then insist that the newest elite are above them. Art LaPella (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm seeing your wistful comments as I scan through. It would be nice if MOS agreed with itself; it would be even nicer if this were not done by demanding that the subpages be rewritten every time that somebody wins a revert war on MOS. (See the bottom of WT:MOSCAPS for an example.) I have been reluctant to propose any such thing; there would be consensus among the regulars (except you) against it. But it would cut the Gordian knot. JCScaliger (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]