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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:19, 1 March 2012

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]

Proposals by User:JCScaliger

Moved from workshop page by clerk --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Workshop proposals made by banned user. Proposals may be resubmitted by editors qualified to participate at their discretion. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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.

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)[reply]

No consensus

If there is no consensus as to existing policy, then it no longer reflects that and should be removed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

WP:No consensus, continued from Masem's quotation. JCScaliger (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this actual practice or just the essayists opinion? Seems easy to game and get content we don't like removed. Jojalozzo 04:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

I assume that "TDN" is JCScaliger's shorthand for "Tony Dick and/or Noetica". If that is so, it should be made clearer in his text. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

Dicklyon's poll

While this case was open, Dicklyon created a third poll at WP:TITLE, a week 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; not only refactoring, but to remove preferences.

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 nasal wash. JCScaliger (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 not to impose sanctions on editors unaware of this ruling. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 not to impose sanctions on editors unaware of this ruling. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by others

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Comment by others:

No great swathes of edits

4)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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Individual sanctions

Born2cycle verbose

1) Born2cycle is reminded that brevity is the soul of wit. He is strongly urged to be shorter in his posts by all means, including links to his own pages; it's more readable, and more readable is more persuasive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

B2C is verbose; but he removed his long list of links from Elen's talk page when asked, and Noetica's first post in that thread did ask that her talk page be the center of discussion.

I'm sure ArbCom can shorten this. :-> JCScaliger (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Born2cycle's scarcity on these pages suggests to me that he may well have realised this. His attention has been drawn to this many times and by many different interlocutors, including by me. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noetica verbose

2) Noetica is reminded that brevity is the soul of wit. He is strongly urged to be shorter in his posts by all means, including links to his own pages; it's more readable, and more readable is more persuasive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Cut and pasted. For an example, although ArbCom will be reading much of Noetica's prose, see the edit to Elen's page mentioned above.

Comment by others:

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:

Discussion

I may be a little dense here, but who specifically is the banned user? --Mike Cline (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at User talk:JCScaliger, he's been banned as a illegitimate alternative account of User:Pmanderson, used to circumvent his topic ban. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Worm, thanks I had just figured it out. The only question I have given the fact that JSCScaliger has been given an indefinite Block, not a Ban decision. Does the same logic apply to a blocked user? If a user is blocked (not banned) after participating in a discussion, do we still retroactively remove their contributions from the discussion? Its just a point of clarification for me, no judgement whatever on the actions taken. Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see any investigation corresponding to this ban. Mangoe (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)From what I understand, the information has been removed because Pmanderson was topic banned from discussions on MOS topics, and is now currently blocked for 1 year for evading that topic ban. So whilst in normal circumstances, if a user is blocked, we don't retroactively remove contributions, Pmanderson was already banned on that topic... if that makes sense. I also believe there is precedent for this in the MickMacNee case. Hope that helps. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I see is that someone, out of the blue, blocked JCScaliger. Where was it determined that the two accounts are the same person? Mangoe (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Well, answering your previous question, the topic ban discussion on Pmanderson can be found here. As for where it was determined, I don't have that information - Arbitrator Elen of the Roads blocked both accounts, [3] [4], specifically stating that you can contact her for more details and that the issue was highlighted by email. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Worm, thanks. Makes perfect sense. Confusion could have been avoided by making that a bit clearer in the template heading or a short paragraph within the template explaining the move. The edit summary just didn't get the message across. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will keep that in mind for the future! Worm^TT · (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa: Having hatted JCScalinger's statement, evidence and workshop proposals, and moved the latter here, I got called away before I had time to post a summary.

The Arbitration Committee were made aware of the use of Pmanderson using the JCScalinger account in order to circumvent their ban. Elen of the Roads performed the investigation and blocked the JCScalinger and Pmanderson accounts in her capacity as the admin who imposed the initial ban on JSCcalinger; this is not a block imposed by the Arbitration Committee.

In answer to Mike Cline's question about material from a blocked user, the answer is that it is not retroactively struck or moved. In this instance, the topic ban was in place long before the case was opened, and material from sock puppets of banned users is routinely removed from various areas of Wikipedia. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the policy for handling the banned user's comments in other parties' sections? Jojalozzo 20:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the extent of the comments and that the arbitrators are all aware of the sock puppetry, it makes little sense to strike or refactor them, and would probably make matters even more confusing. In any case, I have merely collapsed material or struck it, though with hindsight, the striking of comments on this talkpage probably served little purpose. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Workshop closed?

Is the Workshop closed or not? The closure date is listed as Feb 19, but I see people continue to make edits all day today. Has there been an extension? I intended to contribute more, but didn't have time. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my statement in the section immediately below. I trust it clarifies the situation. AGK [•] 18:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement about case schedule and Workshop

I am the lead drafting arbitrator for this case, and have a statement for the parties and contributors to this case. No acknowledgement is necessary, but if you have enquiries or suggestions you are very welcome to post them in this section.

I had planned from the beginning to hold a two-week Workshop for this case, and to this end I have amended the case schedule. The Workshop will now end on 26 February 2012. When the workshop phase closes, the page will be protected in the same way as the Evidence phase has already been. I intend to post a preliminary evaluation of the dispute on ~~Sunday~~ (see below), an outline of the proposed decision on ~~Tuesday~~ (see below), and then the draft decision on ~~Thursday~~ (see below). Although workshop proposals submitted by Sunday 26 February will be taken into account in the draft decision, in order to prevent last-minute changes in the preliminary draft, and the possible inclusion of proposals not mentioned in the evaluation or the outline, I ask the parties to submit their workshop proposals, if possible, before Sunday.

Thank you, AGK [•] 18:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updated: AGK [•] 00:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Today was the first opportunity I had to visit WP and take the time to respond since Noetica made his comments to the evidence analysis section on the 24th. This is why my response to that is a day late, which I just realized. I'm sorry about that, and I hope it's okay. I wouldn't object if Noetica or anyone else wanted to respond to what I posted today. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noetica responded, including bringing up the case of Talk:Catholic Memorial School (West Roxbury, Massachusetts), which is a good example, so I responded to that too. Hope that's okay. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Born2cycle. You got the last word! As I composed my reply the page was closed and protected. Here is that reply:

Yes indeed. Let that whole case be examined closely. Similarly to what you have twice done here, you requested that the closing admin (Mike Cline) re-open the RM. You had completely ignored it while it was open, and extended, for more than two weeks. In an amazing concession, Mike Cline did re-open it for you. You posted more than once, including what I quote and analyse above. Admins who are themselves experts in assessing RMs weighed in and agreed with my view, and disagreed with yours. Undaunted, you later contested the result at length after the second closure – which confirmed the result of the first. Some of that tendentiousness is at the talkpage; a huge slab of it is at the closing admin's talkpage; and another typically oversize spin-off can be found at WP:AN, where it forms part of an even lengthier section that addresses your disruptive interactions with admins.

The central question is not what is "right" in the case; it is your absolute certainty that you are right, and that any disagreement must be dismissed. Let that be examined, by all means.

I have asked AGK to close this Workshop page. The time was already extended; and while everyone else managed to interrupt their lives to meet the new advertised deadline, you alone came in with an extended submission well outside the limit. Please stop, so that others can also. Let the case proceed as advertised.

I am happy for that reply to sit here, and not on the Workshop page. But I will draw it to the attention of AGK, so that no one imagines there was no good answer to what you posted at the last minute, so long after the extended deadline.

My preference is to leave all this alone now. There are lives to live. Let's leave the Arbitrators to deliberate.

Noetica^Tea? 23:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a supplementary announcement regarding scheduling, which is timed well to follow your comment about arbitrator deliberations and real-life :). Due to my real-life busyness, I regret I will not have time to publish a preliminary assessment of the dispute. However, I am happy to post the proposed decision to this page for review - in advance (by about two days) of the beginning of voting. I hope this is satisfactory, and please accept my apologies for the delay. If there are any questions in the interim, please contact me or another drafter. AGK [•] 15:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

Clerks, feel free to delete this if inappropriate.

Wikipedia:Consensus‎ (diff | hist) . . (+239)‎ . . Noetica (talk | contribs | block) (Restored a dispute tag and a note about current action at ArbCom; several parties have disputed text here since late December 2011; it is not as represented in the last edit by SarekOfVulcan (INVOLVED at ArbCom as the initiator and as a party) ♥☺)

Is it acceptable to use arb cases as rationales for winning a content dispute? Noetica thinks that the policy should read 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. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 680: / Line 680: @@
 : I have a supplementary announcement regarding scheduling, which is timed well to follow your comment about ''arbitrator deliberations'' and ''real-life'' :). Due to my real-life busyness, I regret I will not have time to publish a preliminary assessment of the dispute. However, I am happy to post the proposed decision to this page for review - in advance (by about two days) of the beginning of voting. I hope this is satisfactory, and please accept my apologies for the delay. If there are any questions in the interim, please contact me or another drafter. [[User:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 15:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
+== Disruptive editing ==
+Clerks, feel free to delete this if inappropriate.
+*[[Wikipedia:Consensus‎]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Consensus&diff=prev&oldid=479716422 diff] | hist) . . (+239)‎ . . Noetica (talk | contribs | block) (''Restored a dispute tag and a note about current action at ArbCom; several parties have disputed text here since late December 2011; it is not as represented in the last edit by SarekOfVulcan (INVOLVED at ArbCom as the initiator and as a party) ♥☺'')
+Is it acceptable to use arb cases as rationales for winning a content dispute? Noetica thinks that the policy should read {{xt|Unless a discussion regarding a claim of "no consensus" is undertaken on the discussion page, an edit summary of "[[Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus"|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.}} --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 22:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)