Wikipedia: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

The purpose of the workshop is for the parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee to post proposed components of the final decisions for review and comment. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions, which are the four types of proposals that can be included in the final decision. The workshop also includes a section (at the page-bottom) for analysis of the /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Repair revert warring

1) That the language in WP:Consensus on "no consensus" edit summaries, referred to in #Noetica rewrites policy on consensus. be restored to its condition on January 4, 2012, until this case concludes or consensus forms to change it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't agree. AGK [•] 22:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

• The new language is the following addition to a long-standing sentence: Unless a discussion regarding a claim of "no consensus" is undertaken on the discussion page, an edit summary of "no consensus" or "not discussed" is not helpful, Unless a discussion regarding a claim of "no consensus" is undertaken on the discussion page, an edit summary of "no consensus" or "not discussed" is not helpful, except possibly if the edit being reverted created a change in prescribed practice (as on policy and guideline pages), since such a change would need to have wide consensus to be valid.
• The sole discussion of this change is WT:Consensus#Noetica edit, begun after the edit. Two editors commented, besides myself and Noetica. Both disagree with the change. This is not "wide consensus".
• Therefore, the addition condemns the process by which it was added.
• Noetica has now restored his own language; Dicklyon also reverted to it after it was removed by another editor; it was then modified by uninvolved editors and Noetica reverted again to his own original wording.

Comment by others:

No tendentious editing

2) Noetica is barred from editing policy or guideline pages until the conclusion of this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't see why this is necessary. If there is an issue with Noetica's conduct during this case, it can be resolved in the immediate instance by the standard venues. AGK [•] 22:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

In addition to the events above, in which Noetica edited WP:Consensus to justify his own actions, the main complaint here is Noetica's edits on WP:TITLE. Under this sanction, it could be unprotected.

As I shall show in evidence, Dicklyon has also been involved; but he has normally been involved following Noetica's lead. JCScaliger (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Postponement if necessary

3) If any of the parties to this case is blocked due to the complaint of another, the schedule of this case shall be postponed accordingly.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I also don't see why this is necessary. If the issue is that the dispute is ongoing during this case, I would prefer to issue a temporary injunction prohibiting all editing by the disputants of the pages in question, but that would require it to be demonstrated that there is serious problem. No such demonstration has been made. AGK [•] 22:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This may not be necessary, but it removes an incentive to disruptive complaints. (Noetica did bring his dispute to ANI, and neglected to inform me of it until reminded. I think it is this he calls failing to act with a perfect appearance of propriety by your unpredictable standards or anyone else's.

(This could conceivably be problematic in the case of a quite long block; but if such conduct takes place, I count on ArbCom reconsidering this motion, and delivering summary judgment on the offender.) JCScaliger (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The time I would have spent today on evidence has now been used replying to Noetica's post at ANI. If I were to do the converse (not that I'm intending to), I might well use up his time, and get him blocked too; that would give me an unfair advantage. If the meaning of the ANI section is not: Noetica = consensus, which it comes close to saying, then he may have done it for this tactical advantage, which would be a bad thing. JCScaliger (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Moratorium on consensus policy change

1) Participants in this case are enjoined from editing WP:CONSENSUS until it is concluded.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Diffs, please. AGK [•] 22:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The page is currently fully protected, so I'm unconvinced this is necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Since we all know what it said, and that Noetica added the language which now stands, the difference to this case is small, but real. Restoring it as it used to stand would remove the incentive to misconduct. (And in addition, for other editors, this is the opinion of Noetica and Dicklyon, not consensus. WP:Consensus should express consensus, if any page does.) But I don't intend to edit it further, myself. JCScaliger (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

See my comments above for four diffs: Noetica's original edit on January 5, and Noetica's and Dicklyon's reversions today. In addition, I did restore long-standing language on consensus as an ongoing process. I do not intend to cite this here, and don't think it's relevant to the case; I was merely surprised to find it gone. It has not been touched in the ensuing revert war. JCScaliger (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed to avoid muddying the waters further. Making a moving target out of the meta-policies which govern the modification of the MOS is disruptive. Mangoe (talk) 14:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I support this. It seems even-handed and solves the edit warring problem there. Phil, the only reason that the policy is fully protected is because of edit warring by participants in this case. The effect is that multiple other editors—people who have not been edit warring and who are not involved in this case and who are not trying to make the policies look like they support a particular side in this dispute, like SmokeyJoe—have been stymied in their ongoing work to improve the policy page. If the participants were enjoined from fighting over that page, then it would no longer be necessary to protect the policy, and everyone else could get back to work again. I see this injunction as a logical implementation of the page-protection policy's statement that "edit warring by particular users may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others." Actual blocks seem unnecessary, but there's no good reason to prevent normal editing by others merely because a couple of parties to this case wanted to have a little edit war. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This is essentially what I'm seeing. There is an attempt to improve the wording of the lede which is being stymied by this conflict. Mangoe (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposals by Greg L

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Limit tendentiousness directly

1) Locking down guideline pages for a year (as some have proposed elsewhere on pages related to this action), is an exceedingly good way, in my humble opinion, to highlight that the very essence of Wikipedia and its Five Pillars have been severely undermined by behavior and that current interventional processes were incapable of handling the experienced editors involved. Clearly, the venue itself didn’t change in the last month; just the way the mix of actors behaved.

ArbCom in other cases has resorted to remedies such as topic bans and inter-editor interaction restrictions, but I urge ArbCom to consider something else. One of the key reasons—I believe—that WT:AT broke down is that walls of text and cybersquatting (just short of WP:OWN) by a handful of experienced combatants made it exceedingly difficult for “outsiders” to join in so they could moderate hot-heads and help to establish a consensus.

I propose that rather than throwing good, knowledgeable editors clean out of certain areas of Wikipedia or other remedies like interaction restrictions, ArbCom consider identifying which parties mostly contributed to a climate that drove others away from Wikipedia and from specific areas of Wikipedia such as WP:AT and WT:AT. Once those editors are so identified, I propose that they be muzzled to a 24-hour total of (something like) 600 words across all venues combined in which any of the other restricted parties is also present. Like this:

• Party A is on WT:AT advocating something.
• Party B sees this and weighs in with disagreement.

(now the 600-word per day limit kicks in}

• Party A takes offense and goes to Party B’s talk page to profess grief.
• Party B goes to Party A’s talk page.

All the above interactions, in total, count to the 600-word limit for the day.

The solution is simple for each party: If they avoid each other, they are unrestricted. If they want to mix it up, they had best learn to be succinct.

The beneficiaries will be the rest of the community. They will still benefit from the restricted party’s expertise and insight. When things are humming along smoothly and the parties aren’t mixing it up, there are no restrictions. If they want to mix it up, the disruption it causes is minimal. The word limit breaks the back of tendentiousness. If Party A and Party B actually learn to agree on something, they can *break the rule* of their limitation since they can merely elect to not report the foul. Greg L (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A simple, straightforward solution. Locking MOS and TITLE down would be even better; that way those who get their fun out of "giving their little Senate laws" would get bored and go away. But I still think that there are less drastic remedies. [Note to clerk; isn't this section really two remedies?]

The chief problem with the word limit is that rational discussion of any of the points here at issue requires examples, and probably discussion of examples. Those could well go on a subpage; but they would still count against the 600 words. JCScaliger (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Disagree this works, at least alone. It simply takes a protracted debate between the dissenting sides of a MOS debate into a long protracted debate. The larger issue of this case involves editors' attitudes in how the MOS is treated, and my experience in watching various MOS debates is that it is impossible to the change the minds of those that have a strong opinion of which way the MOS should go even if you add more voices against that position. Even for date delinking case, the difficulties of getting an advertised RFC was troubling enough. Locking down the MOS page (with allowable editrequests to be performed when there is a clear consensus for a change) seems reasonable, however. --MASEM (t) 19:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:JCScaliger

Proposed principles

Not legislation

1) Wikipedia is not governed by statute: rules are not the purpose of the community. Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice. Rather, they should document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. When instruction creep is found to have occurred, it should be removed.

While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

WP:NOTLAW JCScaliger (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Guidelines

2) The text of guidelines and policies should reflect consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

WP:POL JCScaliger (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

"No consensus"

3) Unless a discussion regarding a claim of "no consensus" is undertaken on the discussion page, an edit summary of "no consensus" or "not discussed" is not helpful

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties

WP:Consensus. (Quoted in the long-established form)

Comment by others

When to claim consensus

4) The text of guidelines should not present a minority or strongly disputed view as if it were consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Corollary of (2); also, we should attempt accuracy in labelling. Calling something consensus when it isn't only produces bad feeling. JCScaliger (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Goal

5) The goal in a consensus-building discussion is to reach a compromise which angers as few as possible.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Quote from WP:Consensus JCScaliger (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The effect of stone-walling

6) The mere retention of a text which angers more editors than actively defend it rarely constitutes consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From (4) and (5). JCScaliger (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

When there is no consensus

7) When there is no consensus on guidance because there are two roughly equal parties who disagree, it is generally undesirable that either side's position be presented as if it were consensus. When consensus is established or demonstrated, stating it as guidance becomes desirable. Both sides are encouraged to bend over backwards to accommodate the other position, if possible; the other side will see it as little enough.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From (5) and (6). JCScaliger (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

When there is no consensus (continued)

7a) When there is no consensus on guidance because there are two substantially unequal parties, it is strongly undesirable that the minority's position be presented as consensus. If the majority can agree to some acknowledgement or accommodation of the minority position, this is more likely to be a stable consensus than retaining the majority's position unaltered, but there are clear exceptions: This is not intended to encourage the inclusion of fringe views, and there are times when Wikipedia must decide whether to tolerate some practice or to discourage it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As (7). The last sentence is intentionally restricted; often (as with ENGVAR, a good solution to "A or B?" is "some people do A; others do B." But this is not always possible. JCScaliger (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Both are often possible

The Manual of Style can, as one solution, agree to tolerate either of two styles, as it does with Anglo-American spelling or the serial comma. Consistency on such points within articles is generally desirable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A useful reminder. JCScaliger (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The purpose of policy

The reason Wikipedia has policy pages at all is to store up assertions on which we agree, and which generally convince people when we make them in talk, so we don't have to write them out again and again. This is why policy pages aren't "enforced", but quoted; if people aren't convinced by what policy pages say, they should usually say something else. The major exception to this stability is when some small group, either in good faith or in an effort to become the Secret Masters of Wikipedia, mistakes its own opinions for What Everybody Thinks. This happens, and the clique often writes its own opinions up as policy and guideline pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I quote myself at some length because one of the other parties gave me a barnstar for this language, as it stands. It may be consensus; maybe ArbCom can tighten it further. He praises the end particularly; if (as I conclude), he means in part that birders should not compel others to use the capitalization used in bird guides, I agree. But I would apply this more broadly. JCScaliger (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I believe WP:POLICY is much more prescriptive than this proposal. So either the policy or the proposal should change to match each other. Art LaPella (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe that WP:POLICY is inconsistent with this proposal, which is practice. However, what I said was not addressed to core policy, which may have a different status. Having to debate that issue first, before acknowledging this commonplace, is a recipe for infinite delay. Since the relevant texts of WP:POLICY link directly to WP:IAR, which is core policy, the overall position of policy on this is extraordinarily debateable. JCScaliger (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Template

{text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

{text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

{text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Reliable sources vary

1) The questions at issue in this case are ones on which reliable sources vary.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

For example, the Chicago Manual of Style, recommended by WP:MOS, prefers brussels sprouts (§8.60); the Oxford Guide to Style, equally recommended by WP:MOS, recommends Brussels sprouts (§4.1.11). The OGS continues with an observation that capitalization is becoming more common.

Yes, this is the type of detail concerned here. JCScaliger (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Apropos of nothing: I frequently hear the vegetable called Brussel sprouts (without the first s) :). AGK [•] 22:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

A predictable change; one s sound is easier to say. Spelling is unlikely to follow until English adopts Febuary [sic], which is also easier to say. JCScaliger (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Usage

2) Reliable style guides base their recommendations on how people actually write English.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Quotes follow. I bring this up because MOS continually bristles with demands, one now on the evidence page, that things be done MY way (usually phrased "the right way"), whether or not this "right way" is actually done by any but a small minority.

Search WT for "Mebibyte" for more than ArbCom wants. They're WT:MOSNUM, Archives B0 through B17. I must thank Greg L for mentioning this disaster. JCScaliger (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Whim

3) MOS is frequently written on the basis of some editor's personal prejudices.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't think so, Tim. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This very long post by SMcCandlish alleging that one commonly used style is restricted to "English or some other hidebound liberal artsy course[s]," which is certainly nonsense (for example, CMOS recommends the one in question). But the whole page (WT:MOS/Archive 93), and inceed all of MOS discussion on "logical quotation" are worth reading.JCScaliger (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

For another example, see this section: Tony writes "I've always thought the large clunky quote marks were the height of ugliness"; he also thinks capitalization is clunky (and said so at TITLE). That's fine; he doesn't have to use them. But collections of a half-dozen editors exchanging comments of this sort are the basis of most of MOS. (When their opinions are widely shared, then nobody will use the clunky things; when they are not, we have revert wars to spare Tony's higher sensibilities.) JCScaliger (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I don't see how it is helpful to state this. Mangoe (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how it is helpful to whitewash it away. We are not dealing with calculating machines; these are editors who want MOS to enforce their esthetic preferences, even when they are the only ones who share them. JCScaliger (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"Familiarity" is and was consensus

Some language including the idea of "familiarity" was, and is, consensus at WP:TITLE.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

One reason to include this is to see whether anybody will argue the point; but I think it is true, and a reasonable basis for ArbCom to act.

See my evidence at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article_titles_and_capitalisation/Evidence#Article_titles; the first poll was before most of the reversions, and the comments linked to are from two uninvolved editors and Greg L, who identifies himself as a wiki-friend of some of the editors who were reverting - and whose involvement had consisted of some questions and a proposed compromise text.

Unfortunately, the wikifriendship may have dissolved; he says he has received "appalling" e-mails over his proposal to limit verbosity. JCScaliger (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Noetica rewrites policy on consensus.

2) Noetica has rewritten Wikipedia policy on consensus to suit his views.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Buried in [this compound series of minor and trivial edits] is the introduction of a novel phrase, italicized below.

" Unless a discussion regarding a claim of "no consensus" is undertaken on the discussion page, an edit summary of "no consensus" or "not discussed" is not helpful, except possibly on pages that describe long-standing Wikipedia policy."

The series was done on January 5 and 6, 2012, while Noetica, Dicklyon, and Tony were engaged in such reversions.

Even this tentative phrasing is insufficient to justify the conduct which actually took place; but that it should have been introduced at all, by an involved editor, is what several of the sanctions here are intended to prevent. JCScaliger (talk) 03:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Noetica revert wars

Noetica revert wars on policies and guidelines, often without discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

See my evidence on talk. All of these reversions are exact. JCScaliger (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Dicklyon revert wars

Dicklyon revert wars on policies and guidelines, often in support of Noetica, or for leverage in current discussions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

See my evidence on talk.

In addition, there was his sequence of reverts on MOSCAPS, to make it say Halley's comet, beginning immediately before he proposed a move, citing that guideline. He was, naturally, blocked for a week, but continued to revert when he returned. To his credit, he stopped when reported to AN3, before violating 3RR. JCScaliger (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Greg: it is this sort of edit, getting a guideline to endorse one side or another in a current dispute, which makes me dislike examples. JCScaliger (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Closely knit clique

Tony, Noetica, and Dicklyon form a closely knit clique of editors, often at odds with other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

See the move requests and revert wars in evidence.JCScaliger (talk) 04:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Overwrought and abusive language

Tony, Noetica, and Dicklyon use overwrought and abusive language.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Noetica's attacks in the Catholic Memorial School Case are in evidence: 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), protests reopening of discussion, and asserts special authority for "MOS specialists".

Dicklyon heads his evidence Capitalization policy was gutted the same month. This seems a bit much for a change which only included the usual rule at WP:TITLE: follow reliable sources.

Dicklyon also demanded that B2C give up any territory he claims to have won. This is what drew my attention to WP:BATTLEGROUND language; we are not supposed to be imposing surrender terms.

Further examples will follow; different editors seem to have been "subverting" and "weakening" MOS' "authority" ever since TDN arrived.

• Weaken:
  • Tony: MOS is weakened, vastly weakened the authority of the MOS, weakening the function of style guidance.

• Authority
  • Tony: the authority of MOS, vastly weakened the authority of the MOS,
• Subversion
  • Noetica: subvert the process (the same diff suggests that JCScaliger is unable to follow sustained argument, because I subscribe to Twitter. I don't.) Subvert consensus - by disputing it (same edit speaks of "wanton carelessness.")
  • Dicklyon the previous RFC was subverted.
  • Tony: this attempt to use pre-existing rules to subvert good work (date delinking by AWB),

Some editors speak this way; but only a few. (One of them is Tony Sidaway, which is one reason these diffs and links are taking so long to collect.) JCScaliger (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Tony, Noetica, and Dicklyon don't play well with others

Tony, Noetica, and Dicklyon have quarrelled with several editors.

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties

The above section, not yet complete, shows five or six different editors (from RRSCHEN to Kotniski to Lt. Powers) "weakening" or "subverting" the "authority of MOS" - in the view of TDN. This would appear to be TDN's interpretation of anybody disagreeing with what they and a few other editors want. (One of the sections linked to also shows them writing warmly of Kotniski, when he agrees with them.) JCScaliger (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others

Kotniski's edit of 2009

Kotniski's edit of the sentence on capitalization in WP:TITLE in October 2009 has been accepted by consensus. No evidence has been presented of lack of consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It has moved around since, and one example has changed from Video games to Northwestern University. But the substance of the guidance has not changed in two years; the change of example shows that somebody actually looked at it.JCScaliger (talk) 04:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Dicklyon's poll

While this case was open, Dicklyon created a third poll, twelve days after the second. This omitted the wording which had been consensus in the others; the only mention of familiarity was in a proposal (which Dicklyon called Post-Modern, which was his own wording, never proposed by anybody else.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Dicklyon set up a redundant poll, in terms which were likely to deter consensus on the option endorsed by the other two polls. He devised his own polling rules, including ones which "entitled" him, as "moderator" to edit the posts of the contributors.

He is now proposing to canvass all the editors who stopped by once in previous polls. I really do think this sort of behavior obnoxious, and would like it to stop; I am tempted to endorse the comparison (in the comments) to a saline drip. JCScaliger (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Dicklyon refactoring

Dicklyon refactored JCScaliger's edit without asking, and declined to restore it when asked. The complete story is here.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yes, I know this is a minor grievance; but it annoys me. My words have been moved to a place where they make no sense, and I was not asked; indeed, I was refused when I asked politely they be put back.

More seriously, I think it shows the attitude Dicklyon shares with his two friends: Noetica also refactored Born2cycle's comments at the first poll, and was indignant when B2C objected; all three editors talk as through they were (unelected) Presiding Officers, entitled to dismiss the protests of the rabble. JCScaliger (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This incident, if anything, would incline me to ask for sanctions against Dicklyon; comments welcome. JCScaliger (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Noetica refactoring

Noetica edited Born2cycle's edits several times, without his consent, and over his protests. Dicklyon helped.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• First removal by Noetica 01:54
• restored by B2C, with edit summary requesting that this stop
• removal by Noetica 02:08
• B2C restores his text
• removed by Dicklyon 02:13
• Noetica "abandons" the RFC 02:41.

I do not follow the last post linked to; but it seems clear that it has much to do with Noetica and Dicklyon failing to prevent B2C from quoting other editors as agreeing with him. More intervention by self-appointed Presiding Officers. JCScaliger (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Lock 'em down

1) WP:TITLE and all of WP:MOS (all pages bearing the {{style-guideline}} will be fully protected for a year. At the end of the year, amendments to this Arbcom decision suggesting what to do then are welcome.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This has now been suggested on the evidence page, and referred to above. I still don't think it is the best solution; but it is a solution. Those who get their fun out of being legislators will find a hobby where it is welcome. After that, we can resume under WP:NOTLAW.JCScaliger (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

What reason is there to assume that MOS, as it exists, is a net benefit to the encyclopedia? Certainly we have no evidence to that effect. As it is now conducted, it does not reflect consensus; it reflects the most determined revert warring. JCScaliger (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This creates work for admins and will discourage clean up and tweaking. I think this party's other remedies (probation, enforced BRD, non-consensus multi-option guidelines) will allow for the development of a good editorial culture while still stabilizing the pages. Jojalozzo 03:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

If we assume going in that having a manual of style is useful, then it stands to reason that we want to improve it, and per WP:NOTLAW it needs to keep changing to reflect changing consensus. This is a huge admission of failure—this should only be contemplated if we are convinced that we can not do anything to have productive debate at these policy and guideline talk pages. I don't think this proposal can be taken seriously. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

And if we don't think that having a MOS is useful, then we should of course get rid of it, not lock it up so we have a stale document that purports to mean something. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It is MOS "as it now exists" that is the problem. It would be possible to have a Manual of Style which was as relatively calm as many of our Naming Conventions; we would need a different culture there first. But getting rid of MOS may be worth suggesting, as thinking outside the box. JCScaliger (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Beg pardon, I misunderstood, I somehow thought this was a suggestion to prohibit any edits whatosever, not merely full protection. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This would have the effect that whichever version happens to be at the time the case is closed will be effectively locked in. If this passes, the relevant pages need to have a big disclaimer on them stating that protection does not constitute endorsement of the current version, and encouraging people to be particularly wary of following the letter of the guideline too blindly. ― A. di M.​  23:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

If there's just full protection, we can still discuss changes on the talk page and update the page as necessary. This should eliminate the kind of edit warring we've been seeing on some of these guideline pages, but it shouldn't be "locked in" or anything. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

General sanctions

2) Wikipedia:Article titles and all pages composing WP:MOS are under probation. A rule of WP:1RR shall be enforced on them. Since we have an interest in avoiding stalemate, this is intended to restrict exact reversions; novel wording is one road to compromise.

Since these are pages of wide interest, admins shall take care to inform editors of this rule before imposing sanctions. All participants in this case can be assumed to know about them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is the problem at WP:TITLE; it is also the problem throughout MOS. The response to any change in the text is exact reversion. JCScaliger (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

A half measure. 1RR reduces churning but doesn't address someone editing against consensus. For policy and guidelines, whenever there is a reversion, we should have a discussion to check for consensus. 1RR doesn't encourage or enforce BRD (though it doesn't prevent it). I think policy and guidelines need better protection than this. Jojalozzo 01:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This feels reasonable to me; I dont't think there is ever any good reason to go back and forth like this on these pages—there should be orderly discussion first when there is this kind of disagreement. To me, this kind of edit warring was the main problem in all the activity that led to this case. I was contemplating suggesting 0RR. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

General sanctions, continued

2a) Wikipedia:Article titles and all pages composing WP:MOS are under probation. Exact reversions without prompt and substantive discussion on the talk page are prohibited; admins may waive this in cases of obvious vandalism, although noting the vandalism and the reversion on the talk page are encouraged.

Since these are pages of wide interest, admins shall take care to inform editors of this rule before imposing sanctions. All participants in this case can be assumed to know about them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Noetica, again, reverted persistently, without ever discussing the text at all. This is also routine beehabiour on MOS and its subpages. (2a) is intended to be in force together with (2) immediately above, although they could be enacted separately. Either would help. JCScaliger (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thia is when to enforce 0RR instead of 1RR; if there is another standard idea, I don't know it. JCScaliger (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I support this option (enforced BRD) since it will allow more normal editorial activity than the second option (1RR) with less administrative involvement than the first option (full protection). I would like to see this as a permanent, policy/MOS-wide approach but realize that is outside the bounds of arbcom. (with improved wording about encouraging vandalism and reversion :-) Jojalozzo 02:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I would not like to see this generalized; it genuinely does discourage tweaking. But so does the systematic practice of reversion now in place; and if it is strictly limited to exact reversions, tweaking will be possible even if there is a small group of editors who WP:OWN the page.

Note that this does allow the sequence: "Do X" --> "Do Y" --> "Do X, although some editors like Y", without penalty. That retains the guidance, but acknowledges the dissent. JCScaliger (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others

I think with 1RR/0RR this is redundant, as a practical matter. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer 2) above (i.e. 1RR rather than 0RR), as the latter could more easily lead to X-treme wikilawyering IMO. ― A. di M.​  23:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

When there is no consensus

3) When there are two or more roughly equal opinions on a matter of style, and there is no consensus which includes them, the Manual of Style and its subpages shall either state that there are several ways to do it, or be silent on the question until consensus language [with appropriately wide support 21:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)] can be achieved.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

MOS does this quite often now; WP:ENGVAR is perhaps the most obvious example. Such language tends to be stable because everybody can tolerate it, not from revert-warring; and it does not generate pages on pages of talk page controversy. (This is the best wording I can come up with right off; I expect ArbCom to improve it.) JCScaliger (talk) 03:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. It may encourage development of consensus to eliminate extreme options that all sides find obnoxious. I would amend it to specify "appropriately wide consensus" (village pump discussion, newsletter promotions, etc., depending on the issue) - more than the policy/MOS wonks who happen to be watching to the page. Jojalozzo 02:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Tweaked. But as long as ArbCom includes the idea, wording is secondary. JCScaliger (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No great swathes of edits

The practice of systematically editing or moving large numbers of articles in order to bring them into compliance with the Manual of Style has caused repeated controversies on Wikipedia, especially when objections to a particular series of edits have been ignored. If such a series of edits educes protest, it should cease.

Comment by Arbitrators

Coment by parties

Not the best wording; if anybody can firm up the last sentence, while retaining the substance, please do so, even without asking.

Suggested by Mango's comment far below. This, not the pages in Wikipedia space, is the real problem, and causes the real controversy. Tony, Dicklyon, and Noetica found a vague phrase in the lead of WP:MOSCAPS, forced an interpretation, and then spent weeks moving pages all over Wikipedia.

If you're writing an article, and want guidance, consult MOS by all means; that's what it's for. If you happen to be reading an article, and see something that needs fixing, either in your own view or according to MOS, fix it; that's the Wiki way. But personal campaigns for the Right Way are disruptive. JCScaliger (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, just say “An editor should not edit more than n distinct articles in any x-hour period” or something. ― A. di M.​  23:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This issue is intimately related to rapid editing (human or script assisted) and fait accompli. In fact, the date delinking case involved both MOS consensus disputes and rapid editing. I'm sure some principles can be borrowed from that case. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Mike Cline

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

The relationship between style (MOS) and other criteria unclear and inconsistent

1) This is a direct quote from an ongoing RM: It doesn't make much sense to defer to COMMONNAME for style; we would have a different style for each title. The gist of it in the context presented, was that despite overwheming evidence that the common name of the subject in English language RS was capitalized, we should ignore the Common Name evidence and impose WP style WP:MOSCAPS on the article title. We may or may not want this to be the policy, but currently our collective policy on the relationship between common name and style is not clear and that lack of clarity leads to contentiousness when both sides want to have it different ways. Making one naming decision based on a consensus of editors who favor Common Name evidence and making another decision based on a consensus of editors who favor style based decisions, isn't a very good way to run the ship.--Mike Cline (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Lock The Policy Page Down 365 days

1) In proposing this remedy, I first want to call attention to 3 of the five WMF strategic goals

• Grow participation
• Grow scope and quality of content
• Grow reach into the global south

Disputes like this sap volunteer energy in a great many ways, and does little if any to contribute toward achieving our communities’ strategic goals. WP:Title is a policy, but as a policy statement its evolved into part guideline, part how-to essay and part link farm to other conflicting and contradicting guidance. There is only one absolute, undisputable truth about WP article titles—they must be unique, the software demands it. Yet, we’ve managed through 1000s of edits to create a policy document that only one can guess is trying to explain how to create the perfect or best title for every article—all 3.9 million of them. Perfection is difficult, so we attempt to create wording on a case by case basis. Anytime a dispute arises around a title, we seem to need to tweak the policy wording just a bit to what end is unknown other than the quest for perfect titles and perfect policy. I am confident that a great many editors not only enjoy these disputes and enjoy tweaking policies and guidance on a whim but it's become their Raison d'être for participation in the project. Unfortunately when viewed holistically and in context of our strategic goals, such participation is counterproductive.

To say our titling policy is dysfunctional is an understatement and no amount of tweaking in the next 365 days is going to significantly alter that dysfunction, so I recommend, as I did on the evidence page, that the policy page be locked down for 1 year. During that year, interested editors, hopefully from a much wider audience than those who see policy pages as a playground, via RFCs or other methods develop a more concise and functional titling policy. I fully understand there are those who object to this, but I challenge anyone who does to provide substantive rationale as to why no title policy changes over the next 365 days will adversely impact WP and the communities’ ability to work toward the WMF strategic goals. I struggle with the notion that our titling policy is perfectly functional, yet to keep it that way we have to change the policy every few days. If it is dysfunctional today, no amount of incremental change will make it any more functional in the next 365 days. On the contrary, if it is functional as some claim, what is gained by incremental changes?

There are two very important reasons this policy should be locked down for 365 days. 1) to give editors who seriously want to improve this policy and make it reflect WP practice across ~3.9M articles growing to ~5M in the next few years some breathing room to do some real work and consensus building. And 2) It will remove the opportunity for contentiousness over a policy discussion and a policy page. Editors may still involve themselves in contentious debate, but hopefully it will be over big issues, not sound bite incremental policy wording.

This whole dispute started out over the contentiousness caused by trying to change a policy page with incremental, sound bite edits that favored one position over another. That type of behavior will not cease, and will not abate unless we agree to stop and look at this policy we call WP:Title and all its associated MOS and naming conventions holistically. We can’t do that as long as the policy page isn’t protected because energies must inevitably be diverted to defending any change perceived as against a local position. We are hostage to the current dysfunctional policy. There’s a rather famous line in hostage negotiations-Drop the gun and step away from the door. In our case, its Stop editing and step away from the policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This suggestion is analogous to closing the school for the rest of the year because the teachers and administration haven’t yet figured out how to handle bullying. Greg L (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

While TITLE has been protected seven times since it was renamed, four of those protections involved Noetica and his friends, and one (by Nyttend, last May) involved Tony and Kwamikagami. Barring MOS regulars from the page would be more than enough; imposing restrictions so that the MOS style of stonewalling and reversion is impossible would be enough.

I shall be proposing sanctions for both alternatives. Straightening out MOS, where multiple editors have been behaving the same way, probably is beyond the reach of individual sanctions. JCScaliger (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

To me this is an overreaction and an admission of administrative inadequacy. Lesser measures such as enforced BRD would prevent the instability this proposal aims to achieve while still supporting improvement in the article and in the editorial community. Jojalozzo 14:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Does this mean to fully protect, as suggested above at Lock 'em down, or does it mean no edits whatsoever? I'm not sure what "lock the policy page down" means or if it means something different then it does in that other proposal. In any case, while I agree that a total rewrite is unlikely to happen now, I don't see why it would be any more likely if there was some kind of moratorium on changes to the current version. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Assuming this means a total ban on edits to the pages for a year, this is a terrible idea; these guidelines need to change to reflect what is happening, and quite simply they need work. The dash project from last summer demonstrates that there is no need whatsoever to lock the page down completely in order to have "breathing room to do some real work and consensus building". Please don't do this. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Where would that be? This RFC, from May? It contains some useful ideas and phrases. JCScaliger (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

And Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/dash_drafting. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I do not think that second discussion a model; it was designed, by one of the parties to this Arbitration, so that 51% of the !votes got 100% of their way. This is what WP:Consensus was written to prevent. JCScaliger (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Consider demoting WP:Title to guideline status

2) We might want to consider demoting WP:Title to guideline status for several reasons. First, an honest read of the page reveals it is really written like a guideline. There is so much equivocal language in it, that it is terribly difficult to concisely say what our titling policy is. We have 3.9 million article titles, and yet we can’t clearly say in a concise way what the policy is that defends those titles as worded today. By comparison, most of our other policies are essentially unequivocal on the subject they are about. There’s always details and nuance when they are being interpreted and applied, but the policy is clear and concisely stated. Other policy examples: WP:NPOV – unequivocal, we edit from a Neutral, not biased POV. WP:V – unequivocal, content in WP must be verifiable, not un-verifiable. WP:CON – unequivocal, we operate based on community consensus, not the dictates of an individual. WP:CIVIL – unequivocal, we behave with civility and respect for other editors – uncivil behavior isn’t tolerated. I believe most of our policies, with the except of WP:Title can be viewed in this way. Even our notability guideline is more unequivocal than the titles' policy. Article subjects must demonstrate notability, non notable subjects don’t warrant articles.

The real problem arises when editors in dispute over any given title invoke some minute aspect of the current policy and claim the policy supports my position, what don’t you understand about the policy. It makes for impossible discussions. It’s a bit like having a dozen different speed limits on the street that you live on, all based on the weather, day of the week, the time of day and what kind of vehicle you are driving. No matter what speed you are traveling, you can probably defend it with one of the criteria.

Demoting this thing to a guideline might defuse some of the contentious we find in titling disputes.--Mike Cline (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is unlikely to have any effect on the problem; all of MOS is {{guideline}}s and the situation is worse there. Reduction to {{essay}} might help, but seems unjustified for TITLE; "familiarity" is consensus (TDN presumably standing out), so is Recognizability (Mike Cline objecting).

I believe there have been discussions of the level WP:TITLE should have, resulting in leaving it a policy. As I understand it, the purpose of TITLE is to indicate the goals which the various naming conventions implement; all of them do seem to be goals which are valued at move discussions, even if some individual editors don't.

But this can be raised on that talkpage without ArbCom.JCScaliger (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Maybe we could have a ‘minimal’ policy page stating the ultimate desiderata in naming articles, and a longer guideline page giving rules of thumb about how to fulfill the desiderata. ― A. di M.​  23:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That appears to be the common intention. If you have any ideas on what to move to guidelines to accomplish it, suggest it on WT:AT, and I'll probably support. JCScaliger (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Masem

Proposed principles

A Manual of Style is for consistency

1) A Manuel of Style for any work is meant to provide a means of providing a consistent reading experience for the end user of that work. It is meant to define presentation elements such as layout and formatting without directly influencing the content of the work.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

To set up why we have a MOS... --MASEM (t) 17:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

en.wiki's Manual of Style is a guideline

2) Within the English Wikipedia, the Manual of Style has been determined to be a guideline, "sets of best practices that are supported by consensus", as defined at WP:PG. They are not hard rules as with policy, and are open for the occasional exception often under WP:IAR.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

To set up the fact that the MOS is not policy, but descriptive of what we like articles to look like... --MASEM (t) 17:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

en.wiki's Manual of Style aims to prevent edit-warring over trivial matters

3) The English Wikipedia MOS was set up to encourage consistency across the work to prevent edit-warring over formatting and presentation matters. Editors for an article are expected to defer to the consensus for style for that article, or the first-author preferences if appropriate, instead of forcing the MOS-appropriate style to a different one.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

To understand that we are not to edit-war over MOS issues within articles. Not that this necessarily always works, but... --MASEM (t) 17:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, it means that if a MOS provision is causing more edit wars than it's preventing, it shouldn't be there. ― A. di M.​  23:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable test, if you can tell how many it's preventing. JCScaliger (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

en.wiki's Manual of Style incorporates a mix of other MOSes

1) The English Wikipedia Manual of Style has been built from a number of pre-existing Manuals from numerous fields. The best practices from these have been combined to create a single, unique MOS that applies to articles on the English Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

To understand that our MOS is a mix of several MOSes, which leads to the next FOF... --MASEM (t) 17:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

en.wiki's Manual of Style allows for editor preferences

2) The English Wikipedia Manual of Style, due to its disparate formation from multiple other MOS, recognizes that one form doesn't not fit all articles, and thus for some aspects, allows for selection from two or more variants for some style decisions, such as using Harvard references or citation templates for inline citations, as long as internal article consistency is maintained. Some choices involve common-sense selection between the options, such as using British English over American English for an article about a British person. These selections are to be made by consensus of the editors of each page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The MOS specially allows editor choice to come into play, reflecting the nature of it being a guideline, meaning that hard enforcement of the MOS is strongly discouraged (see above Principles #2 and 3). --MASEM (t) 17:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Jojalozzo

Proposed principles

Policy and guidelines require special protection

1) "Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of articles. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community." - Wikipedia:Consensus#Level of consensus

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is not a proposal but a reminder of existing principles. Jojalozzo 18:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Policy and guidelines have insufficient protection

1) Existing editorial meta-policy is insufficiently codified and too easy to game.

Here are some statements about changing policy and guidelines that I have been able to locate:

Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Content changes:

"Policies and guidelines can be edited like any other Wikipedia page. It is not strictly necessary to discuss changes or to obtain written documentation of a consensus in advance. However, because policies and guidelines are sensitive and complex, users should take care over any edits, to be sure they are faithfully reflecting the community's view and to be sure that they are not accidentally introducing new sources of error or confusion.

Because Wikipedia practice exists in the community through consensus, editing a policy/guideline/essay page does not in itself imply an immediate change to accepted practice. It is, naturally, bad practice to write something other than accepted practice on a policy or guideline page. To update best practices, you may change the practice directly (you are permitted to deviate from practice for the purposes of such change) and/or set about building widespread consensus for your change or implementation through discussion. When such a change is accepted, you can then edit the page to reflect the new situation."

Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Proposals:

"New proposals require discussion and a high level of consensus from the entire community for promotion to guideline or policy. Adding the {{policy}} template to a page without the required consensus does not mean that the page is policy, even if the page summarizes or copies policy. Most commonly, editors use a Request for comments (RfC) to determine consensus for a newly proposed policy or guideline, via the {{rfc|policy}} tag."

Wikipedia:Consensus#Level of Consensus:

"Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of articles. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community. As a result, editors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change. Changes may be made without prior discussion, but they are subject to a high level of scrutiny. The community is more likely to accept edits to policy if they are made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others."

Template:MoS-guideline

"This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus."

Template:Under discussion

"This page is the subject of a current discussion on the talk page.
Please feel free to join in. This doesn't mean that you may not be bold in editing this page, but it can't hurt to check the discussion first."

Template:policy-guideline-editnotice:

"Attention: You are editing a page that documents an English Wikipedia policy or guideline. While you may be bold in making minor changes to this page, consider discussing any substantive changes first on the page's talk page."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

None of the policy and guidelines statements says that greater care must be taken when editing policy and guidelines. The language has the same loopholes, suggestions, and IAR latitude that we find valuable for regular articles. I think IAR and BRD are not workable policies for substantive changes to policy and guidelines. A protective editorial process needs to be made binding and stated clearly. Current policy statements differ from article editing policy statements only in the degree of caution suggested. Because they fully embrace IAR and BRD they are operationally identical to article editorial policy. Jojalozzo 17:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

You might have included WP:GUIDES: "Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." (emphasis added) To me, that contradicts the above: "you may change the practice directly (you are permitted to deviate from practice for the purposes of such change)", because anyone disregarding a guideline (without bothering to demonstrate an exceptional circumstance in a specific article) is likely to argue that his edit is the best practice that everyone should follow. So does the Manual of Style mean anything, or is it just one of hundreds of grammar guides? If it's the latter, I'll find something more useful to do. Art LaPella (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Overview

My proposals are structural rather than personal. I think in general that participants in the subject disputes have been acting in good faith within guidelines and policies that do not provide sufficient support and structure for working at the policy/guideline level of the project.

For this arbcom to accept and implement my proposals would be both overreach and self-contradictory. However, I will propose them and perhaps arbitrators would consider a short term, experimental implementation for WP:Title and MOSCAPS while the wider community considers these ideas for general long term application.

Limit bold edits of policy and MOS to refinements of status quo

1) When making changes that clarify and refine existing policy and guidelines, follow the same editing policies as for any other pages. If you are not sure if an edit is clarifying or refining and not a more substantial change, ask on the talk page first.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Bold edits offer an efficient proposal mechanism that allows changes to be viewed and developed in their full context. BRD serves us well with articles and as long as policy and guidelines are not being substantially redirected, we should encourage BRD on policy pages with caveats that extra sensitivity is required with policy/guideline edits. I think the existing policy and templates do this well. Jojalozzo 17:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Very strongly oppose. This is another tool to lock in existing wording, whether it has consensus or is the invention of two or three editors. JCScaliger (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Require and support wide-audience RfCs for substantive changes to policy and guidelines

2) Do not propose substantive changes that take policy and guidelines in new directions via bold edits but instead introduce them through a formal, wide-audience RfC process (see "{{rfc polisubst}}). If an edit is made to a policy or guidelines page and you consider it to be a substantive change, revert the edit with the edit summary, [[WP:RfC polisubst#0-RR]], and start an RfC on the talk page with template {{rfc polisubst}}.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This editorial meta-policy would improve our chances for maintaining policy/guidelines stability and consistency and reduce the likelihood of disputes overflowing onto policy pages. This will require at least rewording Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, Wikipedia:Consensus#Level of Consensus (possibly other policy/guidelines pages) and the hatnotes for policy and guidelines pages as well as implementation of new templates for the 0RR BRD and RfC processes. I realize that I don't have sufficient knowledge or experience to implement or fully formulate my proposal and leave final wording and implementation to those who are better qualified. Jojalozzo 17:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Please don't; this will, in practice, become yet another device to entrench non-consensus language. JCScaliger (talk) 02:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe this reflects the need for my and Jojalozzo's suggestion even more. Editors are never worried if their pet non-consensus positions are entrenched in policies and guidelines, but when it is something they don't agree with, any process that stabilizes that position is worrysome for them. --Mike Cline (talk) 07:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That may be; although I hope that TITLE is more reasonable. But this is not going to be helped by handing out entrenching tools right and left. JCScaliger (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I fully support this concept that policies and guidelines need serious stability and that changes should be made through deliberate, structured processes that not only reflectr, but ensure a very wide community consensus on what the policy says and how it is to be interpreted and applied. We are beyond the days of a Frontier WP where we can make up the rules as we go. Policies and key guidelines ought to be on an annual cycle of review, discussion and change only as necessary to keep the policy/guideline relevant to WP practice.--Mike Cline (talk) 07:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support If nothing else comes out of this, a bias towards stability would at least contain the tendency toward combat to the discussion rather than afflict it on great swathes of articles, as appears to be the custom now. Mangoe (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to believe this; but what I have seen is stability by revert-warring, followed by great swathes of edits by the supporters of the existing text. ("Since we've reverted any change, this is stable text; since it's stable, it must be consensus; since it's consensus, all pages must follow it, whether other editors agree or not.") JCScaliger (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:A. di M.

Proposed principles

Policies and guidelines should reflect consensus

1) In a discussion regarding a section of policy or guideline, "no consensus" means that a proposed section should not be added. If the discussion is about a section already in the policy, that section should be removed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Verbatim from WP:No consensus. ― A. di M.​  23:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Support. Thank you for finding what I have been trying to phrase. JCScaliger (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Disagree on the second statement: if there's a policy section with a long standing history, an RFC (presumably, to determine if it should be removed) that ends in "no consensus" should retain it. "No consensus" in all other aspects of WP means to retain the status quo. This is particularly true if the RFC is more about replacing a section with a different one - we wouldn't remove the section nor default to the new one if we closed "no consensus". --MASEM (t) 18:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I interpret that second statement as applying to questions of keeping or removing existing policy statements. To me it means that existing language may only be retained if there is consensus to do so, i.e. if there is no consensus to retain existing language, it should be removed. Given that we may disagree with such a process for eliminating long standing policy, on what basis would we propose the arbcom ignore this policy which is itself (I think) long standing? Jojalozzo 21:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Taking the approach that an RFC can require long-standing (more than several months) text to be removed if the RFC closes in "no consensus" would open up a lot of system gaming. I can envision editors using this to dissect NFC policy or notability guidelines, for example, by starting RFCs on specific aspects that they don't agree with but know are generally accepted but not by a large margin, and wait for them to close as "no consensus" to remove these. Basically, if the RFC is about adding to policy, "no consensus" should keep the addition out of policy; while RFCs about modifying or removing from policy long-standing text, "no consensus" should mean to retain the text. Of course, say in the case of an aggressive editor that makes a change, and within a few days, people dislike it but don't revert it, and an RFC is started, and it ends "no consensus", in that case, I'd defer to the previous version. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Throttle on large-scale editing

1) Each editor is forbidden from editing (or moving) more than 32 distinct articles in a 24-hour period.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Generally agree. The comments below object to a ban on making 32 different edits in a 24 hour period, which is not what is proposed. I would add language making clear that the intention is to cover editing 32 different articles to make the same sort of change. "Big, controversial change" goes the wrong direction; the changes under discussion here are always small, and the editor making them will almost always claim that they are uncontroversial, even if they are - and that they are consensus, even if they are not (after all, his two mates like them). JCScaliger (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This ought to stop people from editing lots of articles without even reading them because of their own petty peeve, whereas it shouldn't affect people who actually read the articles they edit (unless they take less than 15 minutes in average to read and edit an article or spend more than 8 hours a day on en.wiki). ― A. di M.​  00:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This ought to stop many non-controversial edits, too, and that isn't the intent. Does it apply to AWB? If so, it pretty much eliminates the reason to use it. Or suppose someone wanted to change something simple like a template name in the March 9 article, and similarly in all 366 day articles. I've done things like that, and probably more than 32 articles a day. How about Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation? Renaming a category with more than 32 members? Art LaPella (talk) 06:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that the clarification "to make the same sort of change" wouldn't prevent the proposal from applying to most of my examples. In the March 9 example, for instance, changing the template name is the same sort of change, made in all 366 articles. Art LaPella (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to be able to recognize and deal with disruptive behavior without resorting to these kinds of crutches. This is way too blunt. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The comments below object to a ban on making 32 different edits in a 24 hour period, which is not what is proposed.—I just want to make it clear that I understand the proposal and am objecting to a ban on making even the same sort of change to more than 32 pages. There are all kinds of obvious examples of why making the same sort of change to 100s of pages in a day is just fine. This proposal is not nearly nuanced enough. It's probably on the right track, though—maybe there is a way to word a prohibition on controversial changes to more than 32 articles without getting a clear consensus first. I can't think of a good wording, offhand, but this proposal sure isn't it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Disagree strongly. 32 non-contentious edits/day is extremely simple to meet for any editor. I would presume that the intent was for this to only apply to the editors that are party to this case, but even then, as so far argued, not all of them are necessarily active in this case. Nor does it appear to be an issue with speed of edits (unlike the Betacommand case). --MASEM (t) 19:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems like overkill to me. We need something that's more like "don't do a big, potentially controversial change without getting consensus first". Mangoe (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"Big" here would include "change affecting huge numbers of articles". That the change in each article might be small is irrelevant. Mangoe (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Restore and protect

1) All the policy and guideline pages involved in this case are restored to their revision as of 1 January 2012, 00:00 (UTC) and fully protected until 31 December 2012, 23:59 (UTC); the normal {{editprotected}} mechanism will be used for fixing typos and other non-substantial issues, but actual changes to guidance shall be discussed first in an RFC advertised on WP:CENT, WP:VP, relevant WikiProjects' talk pages (if any) and on the policy/guideline page itself through {{underdiscussion}}. (If the RFC results in no consensus, the relevant section of the policy/guideline page shall be removed altogether.) ― A. di M.​  00:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I strongly concur and endorse the step suggested above for two reasons. Policies and important guidance should never be altered by the whims of local consensus but instead should be subject to wide community resolution and consensus. Additionally, preventing edit-waring and the resultant discussions on minor and essentially inconsenquential changes to an otherwise important policy will give those desirous of improving this dysfunctional policy some breathing room to consider, discuss and review potential improvements. IMHO, volunteer energy spent on inconsequential changes to dysfunctional policy is a huge waste with no upside for the encyclopedia. When such discussion inevitably evolves into contentiousness and incivilty, especially on important policies and guidelines, real harm is done to the community and encyclopedia. The suggested protection is a good idea. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. ― A. di M.​  00:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Guerillero

Discretionary sanctions

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages relating to Wikipedia's internal Manual of Style, broadly interpreted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is the nth time that issues surrounding the MOS has come up before arbcom. (Date delinking, dash/hyphen, etc) The whole area needs to take a rest. I believe that this has the ability to knock some wind out of the sails of the next major MOS dispute, diacritics perhaps, because it keeps the MOS pages from being a battleground. I may have more ideas to come after reading the evidence en masse. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: