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

Arbitrators active on this case
Active:
 * AGK
 * 1) Courcelles
 * 2) David Fuchs
 * 3) Elen of the Roads
 * 4) Hersfold
 * 5) Jclemens
 * 6) Kirill Lokshin
 * 7) Newyorkbrad
 * 8) PhilKnight
 * 9) Roger Davies

Inactive:
 * 1) Risker
 * 2) SilkTork
 * 3) SirFozzie
 * 4) Xeno

Recused:
 * 1) Casliber

Guidance on inclusion of editors as parties
The clerk assigned to this case has received multiple enquiries about the inclusion or exclusion of certain editors as parties to this case. Such enquiries should be directed to an arbitrator on one of the case talk pages, because the clerks do not control the list of parties, so they are unable to respond to associated enquiries.

As a rule, it is better for the list of parties to an arbitration case to be over-broad than that it excludes key disputants. I personally was listed in a recent arbitration case, before I joined ArbCom, for a dispute in which I had almost no involvement; I recall being particularly annoyed at this, and I understand the frustration of those editors who appear to have been unnecessarily listed. To these editors, I can only say that you have my assurance that, should your involvement be minimal (and especially should no evidence be submitted about your actions), you will not be named in any part of the final decision.

Regarding editors who have not been named as parties but who have a significant involvement in the dispute, I of course regard the situation as unworkable. However, I understand that it is difficult to submit a wholly-complete list of parties at short notice, and that some follow-up in this respect will be necessary with the list of parties. Therefore, the guidance for this aspect of the issue is that, should you present evidence about a disputant who is not listed as a party, you should immediately propose a motion at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Workshop to add that editor as a party to this case. An arbitrator will respond clearly to the request, at the first opportunity.

The evidence phase is scheduled to end in a little under two weeks, so the list of parties is not a source of urgent concern. Accordingly, I regard it as acceptable that the list of parties remain inaccurate for another few days, especially as this committee has a very full agenda at present. We will ensure that nobody is improperly excluded from the list of parties by the time the evidence phase ends. On the other hand, if any editor has been included but feels they should not be, I refer them to pg. 2, but also invite them, should they feel strongly about the matter, to contact me or another drafter directly, on our user talk pages (and to not contact a clerk, who cannot be of much assistance). I hope this advice is clear. AGK [•] 00:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As the main topic seems to be the recent "recognizability" turmoil at WP:TITLE and its talk page, I think the main contributors should be participants in this proceeding. I've tabulated them in the history I compiled at User:Dicklyon/Whither Recognizability?.  The ones missing, active editors there in the last few months, are User:Kotniski, User:Pmanderson, User:Philip Baird Shearer, User:Blueboar, and User: Hesperian.  Kotniski, the most active editor there, seems to have left, but I think the others are still around, and some would have useful inputs (and generally might also have to be seen as part of the problem, to the extent that there's a problem).  How can we invite them to participate?  Dicklyon (talk) 06:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Dicklyon, please propose a motion on the Workshop to add these editors as parties to this case. Although it would be acceptable to link to your userspace evidence subpage for the purpose of substantiating such a motion, please know that the subpage will not be admissible as general evidence, and anything in that page you want this committee to take into account when deciding the case must be posted on the Evidence subpage. Thank you, AGK  [•] 17:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * With now both Pmanderson and Kotniski being gone, and others being only unwitting accessories to the turmoil, and the scope of the case being so undefined, I don't see the point at this time of a motion to add new parties. Thanks for letting me know how it might be possible though.  Dicklyon (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

changes still being forced in guidelines
is a good example of the problem. User:SMcCandlish changes the capital letters guideline to say that all common names of species are in lower case. Then he goes to the fauna guideline and flora guideline to make the same changes. When someone points out that there is no consensus among editors of fauna articles, he reverts because the guideline has to "remain in sync with the controling site-wide guldelines" that he just edited. So, we have an editor that has never edited flora or fauna articles, forcing all expert editors in the area to follow his preferred style.

Since WP:MOS has a certain wording, this editor assumes that all sub-guidelines need to have the exact same wording. As opposed to changing WP:MOS to fit the more specialized guidelines that are edited by editors familiar with the relevant areas. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure SMC has edited flora/fauna articles, Enric. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 20:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My bad, I can see that he has edited several fauna articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I was vaguely aware of this side-kerfuffle because of the ANI thread. I see another editor has retired over it. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That User:KimvdLinde has actually been editing quite actively since his "retirement" message. Dicklyon (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I see the issue has landed on ANI again today. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Do words in responses to others count in word count?
Are words used to respond to what others have said included in the 500 word limit? --Born2cycle (talk) 06:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You may find it useful to read the lead of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Evidence. The first paragraph states: "Create your own section and do not edit another editor's section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs." Further guidance follows in the third paragraph, where it clearly states: "The Arbitration Committee expects that all rebuttals of other evidence submissions will be included in your own section and will explain how the evidence is incorrect." -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 06:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again, just like at the MfD, we are not communicating. I've read all that, and none of it answers my question.  Why you chose to bold "do not edit another editor's section" I have no idea.  Did you think I was responding in another editor's section? Did you think I was considering it?  What did I write that would cause you to think that? My question stands: Are words that I use in my section to respond to what others have said in their sections included in the 500 word limit?  I mean, what if someone presents their evidence in 500 words, then someone else presents evidence against them, and the first person wants to respond?  Can he?  If he does, he goes over his 500 word limit.  Is that okay, or must he pare down his original statement to be able to respond to the other?  --Born2cycle (talk) 07:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All words used in your section, including replies to other parties, are included in the 500 word and 50 diff limits; that said, editors may ask for extensions in the limits if absolutely required. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 07:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Alexandr... thanks! Is there a way to get a count the way the bot counts without waiting for the bot to run? --Born2cycle (talk) 07:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You can use wordcounttool.com --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I can use wc -w as well, but what I'm wondering is how the bot counts words inside brackets and double brackets - specifically does it count them as words or only as links? These utilities count everything.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I get 1200+ words from the word count tools, but the bot reports under 500. I'll ask the bot operator.  Thanks for your help.   --Born2cycle (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ohconfucius, despite kindly bolding do not edit another editor's section for me, I note that you edited SarekofVulcan's Dicklyon polling section. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ooooh, it looks like B2C is now turning his guns onto me. I also confess to having edited your section 'Ohconfucious'. It's getting hot here so I'm outta here! BTW, the bolding was how it appears in the section I linked to. Cheers, -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 08:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Turning guns onto you? That's WP:BATTLEFIELD language and, again, misunderstanding. I just shared that because I thought it was ironic.   --Born2cycle (talk) 08:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you both continue to bicker, you will be excluded from the case pages (and blocked if you violate this exclusion). This committee is here to resolve the dispute, not entertain a petty argument. AGK  [•] 20:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Evidence from Noetica (removed because his submission was too long)
I fully appreciate the removal of the last point of my submission in response to Born2cycle's recently accepted late evidence. I could not predict the behaviour of the bot that monitors these things, though I did my best to anticipate its count. I now post that final point here, so participants can see what I had in mind. It need have no effect on the committee's formal deliberations; but it may be relevant to proposals to be made on the Workshop page: Thanks to all.
 * Through all the difficulties at WT:AT, so far only Dicklyon (along with Mike Cline, lately) has attempted a genuine RFC that beckons the community in. Born2cycle immediately distorted Dicklyon's RFC. Noetica's offer to Born2cycle: "I can show you how to manage a fair RFC, if you like. We've had some good ones at WT:MOS." This was completely ignored, despite successes in which Noetica, Tony, and Dicklyon played key roles: WP:DASH revision (last leg of the 2011 MOS–ArbCom Ultramarathon); restructuring the larger MOS (now implemented); a sample of stress-free consensus-seeking on quotation marks; another one like that; major consultation at WT:MOSCAPS (put on hold after disruptive editing by PMAnderson sockpuppeting as JCScaliger, and unilateral editing by Kotniski). WP:MOS has led the way; let other pages now benefit from experience there.

N oetica Tea? 01:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Noetica, for all you have done in calmly leading discussions to consensus at MOS. 2011 was a tough year for a lot of us, with the en dash mess that Pmanderson started and Born2cycle kicked into crisis mode with his non-admin close of the heated RM at Battles of the Mexican–American War.  You led us back from the brink, and though I argued with you aplenty over the details, we found a compromise consensus wording of the whole en dash thing that everyone could accept, except for Pmanderson who got himself banned from MOS for his continued disruptions after that closed.  Hopefully, something like this can sort out the mess at TITLE, too.  With some of the most disruptive owners of it retired, maybe Born2cycle will accept the need to listen to, and compromise with, others who care as much as he does about WP article naming.  I never doubted that his intentions are good, but the problem must nevertheless be dealt with somehow.  I didn't put it evidence because when I tried to write it I got too agitated.  I hope this is OK; yours clarifies what happens better than I could have.  Oh, and on the caps side, we may still need to try to clean up some of the mess that Pmanderson made, as JCScaliger; there are several RMs that failed where he was the only opposition, over MOS issues, which he was banned from even commenting on (and one that went through with his support, to capitalize what should have been left as lower case).  This may take a while to sort out, and perhaps should be part of what the arbs consider; they never made the scope here clear, but getting his lenient block turned to an indef would seem to make more sense.  Maybe in the workshop...  Dicklyon (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Link correction request
In the section Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article_titles_and_capitalisation/Evidence the first bullet has a foot note to Wikipedia_talk:AT. That link no longer works as that section has been archived. Please correct that to reference the same section in the archives: Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles/Archive_35. Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Link update request
In the evidence presented by Mike Cline, section This is a pure and simple failure of WP policy, the link "Holistic View of WP titles" has gone stale because the page was archived. Please replace by this working link:
 * Holistic View of WP titles

--Lambiam 18:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)