Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Proposed decision

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

Concern
I know you guys are still working on this (much appreciated), but I would like to bring your attention to something in case it got missed. 1.2 says this:
 * All parties are reminded to avoid personalizing the MoS disputes, and to work collegiately towards a workable consensus. In particular, a rapid cycle of editing the pages to reflect one's viewpoint, then discussing the changes is disruptive and should be avoided. Instead, parties are encouraged to establish consensus on the talk page first, and then make the changes.

That advise sounds reasonable on the surface, but the problem with establish consensus on the talk page first, and then make the changes is that it's too simplistic. It's too simplistic because WP:Status quo stonewalling, as was demonstrated at WP:AT/WT:AT, can be used to prevent changes from happening contrary to not only consensus, but even in the absence of any reasonable argument in opposition to the change whatsoever, for weeks. At WP:AT, we did have the "rapid cycle of editing", but the page was soon locked, so a bit later than would be ideal we did have the situation recommended here (though instead of getting there voluntarily, we were forced into it by admin page locking). And yet the problem persisted on and on from there. Despite repeated demonstration of clear consensus support for the change, those against successfully created the impression of substantive dispute and a lack of consensus. This is what caused Kotniski to quit, and what I was hoping Arbcom would analyze and address.The issue was only resolved only after Kotniski had enough and quit Wikipedia, when Elen of the Roads finally unlocked the page, allowing for the change to be made, and threatening anyone who reverted to be blocked. Frankly, if it wasn't for this authoritarian action, there is no reason to believe the stonewalling wouldn't still be preventing the change from going in today, now almost three months later. It's an insidious and highly disruptive behavior that I believe stems, not from not enough rules, but from insufficient enforcement of existing rules, in particular AGF and CIVIL. In this case we had editors reverting a change who clearly did not even read the arguments in favor of the change, and refused to discuss the change substantively after reverting. Why is this acceptable?Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I must disagree. When it comes to a policy or guideline - especially one like MOS or titles guidance - that is subject to significant regional and personal preference, changes must be reviewed in advance. Almost every change will require consultation with your peers, so in the case of policy or guidelines (which that remedy discusses exclusively) you will be required to "establish consensus on the talk page first". Such is my own interpretation, at least; the other arbitrators (many of whom have not had the time to vote) may beg to differ. AGK  [•] 00:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What percentage of changes to policy pages do you think are discussed and reviewed before they are implemented? I doubt it's more than 25%, but anyway...I agree with this in principle, but it has little relevance to this particular case, and this can be abused, which is relevant to this case, because that's what happened here.  The policy "change" in question here was not really a change but a restoration that was already reviewed by peers, and was in place with consensus support for almost a year before it was inadvertently removed.  I explained all this in a comment simultaneous to restoring this wording.  That's all in the submitted evidence.Never-the-less, the edit was reverted.  Fair enough.  But then those reverting refused or were unable to explain why they objected to that wording (and even admitted to not reading the explanation for the change), except that I made the change.  So I and others, after making more than reasonable efforts to get them to engage, reapplied the edit.  I mean, when you're supposed to discuss, but those reverting refuse to discuss, what are you supposed to do?  (Note how once Elen of the Roads declared that the change would be allowed, everything instantly quieted down.  All the alleged "need to discuss" and "need to consider alternatives" was revealed to be the smoke screen that it was: nothing but stonewalling to retain the status quo.) They reverted again.  In the mean time, others chimed in on the talk page, all in support of the change and wondering what the fuss was about.  The page was locked due to an apparent dispute, but there really was no dispute (see below).  This absurdity went on for over a month until Elen finally made her statement.   This insidious disruption is the problem I was hoping Arbcom would address.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Pmanderson
The proposal "2.2) Pmanderson is indefinitely prohibited from engaging in discussions and edits relating to the Manual of Style" continues to ignore his long-term disruptive behaviour at TITLE; when Elen imposed such a ban after the AN/I or RFC/U or whatever it was, there was a bit of an outcry that she had ignored TITLE, even though the evidence showed a history of more than a dozen TITLE-related incident complaints and such, and even though there was clear community support for including TITLE and RM related discussions in his ban. I hope we don't repeat that mistake.  Of course, a total indef block would be good, too.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My intent was that a MoS-scope ban would include TITLE. I believe that's how my fellow arbitrators are treating it as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a surprising interpretation since TITLE is policy and MOS is a guideline. I suggest being explicit about that to avoid misinterpretation.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I for one pay little attention to the finer points of styling, as do (I suspect) most editors and the other arbitrators. We therefore were probably unaware that those with an intimate familiarity with the policies and guidelines would treat article titling as separate from the manual of style. To that end, I copy-edited the remedy so that it reads "relating to the Manual of Style or policy about article titles". I hope this resolves the ambiguity. AGK  [•] 00:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt it will - I believe they want PMA banned from discussions about what individual articles should be called, as well as the policy on what articles should be called.Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I think we said what he want is an indef block, but this ban is probably OK. He can't very well say much in an RM discussion without discussing TITLE.  But a ban from RM discussions would indeed be welcome.  As for the guideline/policy difference between MOS/TITLE, that's probably not an ArbCom issue, but is something I'd like to see fixed (by demoting TITLE to guideline, since it doesn't much resemble policy) at some point.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Consensus building at WT:TITLE
This states:
 * 3) Interested parties are instructed to spend the next 21 days from the closure of the case to determine the phrasing of WP:TITLE to obtain consensus on the disputed passages. This may be the continuation of a current discussion or new thread. From that date, a period of five weeks is granted for the gathering of consensus on the issue. The discussion should be of sufficient structure to allow easy quantification of consensus rather than a large amount of poorly-framed debate. Parties are encouraged to focus edits on forming consensus rather than edits to the policy page itself.

With all due respect, this appears to be written by someone who is not very familiar with what has occurred at WT:TITLE since the problems first arose on Dec 21. Those of us in favor of the change to recognizability that was originally in question, have been asking for alternative wording to be proposed since Dec 21st. None has. There is no disputed passage. There never has been a disputed passage (within the scope of what this case is about)... by any reasonable meaning of "disputed".

That is, no substantive objection has ever been offered to the so-called Kotniski wording, and certainly no alternative wording has been proposed, much less any that might get consensus support. The wording that is in there now, the wording that I original restored, is the wording that has consensus support, and has had consensus support, since it was originally added by Kotniski. It was taken out earlier in 2011 in an effort to simplify the wording, by a group of editors who did not realize the change in meaning that resulted, and nobody noticed until I did late on Dec 20. Since then we have shown over and over that this wording has consensus support.

After all that, it is most distressing to see this referred to as "the disputed passage", which only shows further how successful the stonewallers have been at creating this aura of dispute, when none actually exists. It's their stonewalling behavior that is the problem here, not the wording. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That is precisely the point: that previous proposals were submitted but no agreement was reached. We are instructing you to re-open the discussion ("continuation of a current discussion") with a view to reaching a substantive agreement. Have I misunderstood your point? Also, you would be well advised to consider, when you write "With all due respect&mdash;", that the sentence is probably unnecessary. :-) AGK  [•] 00:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I've been trying to explain this since my first comment on Dec 21, and it's very frustrating to have obviously totally and completely failed so miserably. Please forgive my frustration.What previous proposals were submitted?  I know of none.  No evidence of any was submitted in the evidence to this case. That's the point.  There is no dispute, but they created an aura of dispute, and stretched it out for weeks, involving dozens of editors, and creating an Arbcom case.  That's the problem I was hoping you would investigate.  Over what?  Nothing!Many of us who supported my Dec 21 restorative edit which was reverted asked over and over for alternative proposals, but none were ever offered.Remember, this is ultimately about a very plain and simple point. When we choose titles, we try to make them recognizable, but not necessarily recognizable to someone unfamiliar with the topic.  This is blatantly obvious from perusing a dozen or so of any random titles.  So about two years ago Kotniski added wording that clarified this.  No one objected, and it remained there for almost a year, until a small group of editors earlier in 2011 was looking to simplify some wording, and in that process removed the Kotniski clarification limiting the scope of recognizability.  From their associated discussion it was clear they did not realize the significance of what they removed (this was confirmed when they were all informed and none expressed interest).  When this was brought to my attention on Dec 20, I explained it on the talk page and restored the Kotniski wording.  It should have ended right there, almost three months ago.But three editors, who are apparently motivated by a desire to make many articles titles more descriptive by adding more precision to them than is necessary for disambiguation (here is a recent RM discussion in which Noetica is the only one who opposes, and here is one where Dicklyon is the only one - these happen all the time.  Each one is not a problem in and of itself, but it shows how contrary to consensus their views are, but they keep persisting), contrary to broadly accepted consensus, and so seek to loosen the policy/guideline wording about that where possible, opposed the restoration of that wording, but wouldn't discuss their reasons in any substantive way.I don't know if I've been clear or not, but the bottom line is that there is no dispute about the recognizability wording at WP:TITLE, and there never has been.  All the ruckus was bullshit disruption, pure and simple.  So remedies involving coming up with new proposals, or even worse, "continuing the discussion", when "continuing the discussion" (about nothing) was the disruption, are completely missing the point. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

AGK, I just noticed you said that I was "outnumbered in the content dispute". What content dispute are you talking about? How was I outnumbered? My position about the recognizability wording at WP:TITLE was supported by consensus unanimously.You say my pursuit of consensus was "questionable". Really? I'm sorry, but I bent over backwards trying to explain what I was doing and why, encouraging everyone and anyone to weigh in, and showing repeatedly that my edit did have consensus support based on what editor after editor said and confirmed. My God, if achieving unanimous support for an edit is not achieving consensus, what is? I pleaded with the reverters to explain why the objected so we could work something out. But they never offered a single substantive suggestion. I tried and tried to think of a compromise, but just couldn't think of one, and explained why. After all that you say my pursuit of consensus was questionable? Frankly, I'm offended.You also mention my "immovable grasp" of BRD. I ask again, what would you have me do? What you have done in my position? 1a) I made an edit that I don't think was bold because it restored wording clearly supported by practice and consensus, but... 1b) Just in case, per advise at BRD, I simultaneously explained/justified that edit. 2) Despite all my efforts, the edit was reverted. 3) Those reverting refused to discuss my explanation, or the pros/cons of the edit in any substantive manner. 4) Everyone else who weighed in supported the edit, for substantive reasons.So, what would you have done? How do you do the D in BRD when the reverters refuse to D? As to the alleged "dirt file", that's not what it was at all.  As an admin I presume you can look at it.  Have you?   If you did look at it, you would see that it was obviously the start of a collection of diffs in preparation for DR.   --Born2cycle (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Born2cycle - et al.
I'm writing here to address what I see as some troubling statements in the proposed decision page, as well as elsewhere. As I tried to explain on the workshop page, the issue here is not about any specific editor - but it is about specific combinations of editors. B2C talks - a lot - and thereby draws a lot of attention. He talks when he's in the minority, and he talks when he's in the majority. In this case, his wording was actually in the majority, which a couple of arbs seem not to realize. But the issue is not B2C's rightness or wrongness. The issue is the interaction among editors. As I laid out on the workshop page - and as I hope is evident on the evidence page - there is a history among B2C, Pmanderson/JCScaliger, Noetica, Tony1, and Dicklyon. Various combinations of the first two and the latter three - but only in combination - leads to the edit warring and voluminous talkpages that we see scattered througout WP. PMA/JCS used a sock, and that's a problem. But I think it's wrong - on the evidence given - to single out B2C and not mention Noetica, Tony1, and Dicklyon. Their contributions to the WP:TITLE talkpage are self-evident.Again, from my perspective, this is not primarily an MOS or TITLE issue - it's a personality issue. The editors I've named - in combination - lead to drawn out arguments, and more importantly, demoralized and burned-out editors. I really hope that the arbs can see that. And if I'm way off base, then please let me know how. If anyone would like me to point them to specific evidence that's been given in this case that backs up my assertions, I'd be happy to. Dohn joe (talk) 02:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hopefully discretionary sanctions will adress this, in that it provides a means to warn all the "old lags" to tone it down, cut it out etc etc. I agree that it is primarily a personality clash (because there isn't really any difference in the position taken by any side, and as I once said, no one has history going back to WWI on this subject). Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Elen, I'm not happy at all with Dohn joe's (continued) imputations without diffs or other evidence, that I, for one, have done anything wrong at the title page. It's the worst kind of smearing, and as someone else pointed out, he is not free himself of interactions with editors such as Anderson and B2C. Let him be more measured and less dishonest in his lobbying here. Could I, for example, have a set of diffs that suggest I have "clashed" at wp:title, please? I went there only on odd occasions, primarily to pose questions about how the current text at title operates in reality. Those questions were never properly answered at the page, but I'm glad I asked them. As I've said before, I have no solutions and I have no big dog in the title-scoping issue (I might if I did think I had a solution ... but I don't). Yet I seem to be depicted as some kind of tendentious partisan at wp:title (I don't like "old lag", either ... what does that mean, exactly?). Not happy.  Tony     (talk)   03:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, Tony was the first to revert my consensus-backed edit to WP:AT (this diff was submitted in the Evidence).  He asked for "talk-page consensus" in his edit summary, but at that time I had already started a discussion about this edit on the talk page (also submitted in evidence), explaining how this wasn't really a change but a restoring of the original wording which had been inadvertently removed.Here we are almost 3 months later and I'm still waiting to hear what objection Tony has to this edit, what he thinks of my explanation, etc., and he  claims he hasn't "clashed" at WP:TITLE?  Seriously?  BRD works, but only if the Reverter participates in the Discussion part.  Tony did not.Tony, if it wasn't for your counter-to-consensus revert, and your non-participation in substantive discussion about my allegedly-bold edit and your revert of it, NONE of this clash would have occurred. This is exactly what I was hoping Arbcom would address.   --Born2cycle (talk) 04:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that it? One revert, months ago, with a request? I rest my case. PS I don't want to get into a tennis match, so if you feel you need to have the last say, be my guest.   Tony     (talk)   05:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not it. That's where it started.  And it's not the revert per se, but the revert coupled with refusal to discuss it... in other words, it's avoiding the D in BRD that is disruptive.  --Born2cycle (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Tony - I realize that I'm walking a fine line, but I'm trying very hard to separate the good work of individual editors, and the problems that can happen when those good editors interact with each other. I consider you a good editor; and as I said on the workshop page, I have worked productively with all the editors I named - you included. And I hope to do so in the future. My only problem is with the combination of PMA/JCS, B2C, you, Noetica, and Dicklyon.To see what I mean, here's the contributions list for WP:TITLE from Dec. 21 to Dec. 31 of last year - the core of the ArbCom dispute. The top six contributors are, in order, B2C, Dicklyon, Noetica, Kotniski, Tony1, and JCScaliger. Those six made 70% of the edits of that 11-day stretch, with 23 other editors combining for 30%. Going a bit further back, from Dec. 7 to the 31st, it's the same editors (adding PMA and JCS together). A majority - but not all - of those edits was directed at, or came in response to, someone else within that group. And again, this is a fine line, because debate and discussion can be very healthy and productive. But there is a reason that SarekofVulcan decided to bring this case, and why other editors have agreed that there is a personality clash here. I don't know what the solution is, and I'm fairly sure that I've been sticking my foot in my mouth in even bringing it up. I just want to see good editors contribute productively to this great encyclopedia that we all care about. Dohn joe (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You certainly are walking a fine line: the smear by combination is very easy to assert, but where is your evidence? I made 26 of what look to be 400 edits: ~5%. They were not uncivil: they asked questions about the application of current policy and provided examples of surprising or possibly troublesome titles. I have no solutions, but you're depicting me as a trouble-maker. Diffs???  Tony     (talk)   06:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As I said, discretionary sanctions will provides a means to warn all the arguing contributors to tone it down, cut it out etc etc Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anyone will care to hear from me (especially since I'm more "checked out" than in at this point), but I wanted to voice some support for what Don joe is saying here. It seems a bit strange that PMA and B2C are being singled out here (admittedly for differing reasons) while the others are left standing next to their flag. Pointing to "discretionary sanctions" seems wholly unsatisfactory. The combination of these six specific editors, who are otherwise generally productive editors, seems to create a caustic witches brew for whatever reason. I think that the committee is missing the target here, if ever so slightly. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 06:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm getting tired of editors who come in here and smear through vague innuendo. It's dishonest. Diffs, please, if you're referring to me. If you're not referring to me, then explicitly exclude me and specify whom you're referring to and what the problem is.   Tony     (talk)   06:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

MOS broadly construed includes TITLE?
I presume that when Kirill entered this section he meant to include TITLE, too, if that's what was decided on the Pmanderson ban. Clarification would be nice. However, I don't understand how this case expanded to MOS, when it was about MOSCAPS. Pmanderson was banned from all MOS, but this case's scope certainly didn't go there. Dicklyon (talk) 06:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is just so weird that "The incident that precipitated this arbitration case was a rapid series of edits at WP:TITLE", but discretionary sanctions are being applied throughout the whole of the MoS project instead. It appears that in the shift in favour from two remedies that do mention WP:TITLE (3 in a really odd way, and 4.1) to 4.2, WP:TITLE has been lost in the wash, to leave the emphasis almost entirely on MoS. This is seriously unbalanced. Am I misreading the text?It is surprising that a 1RR rule wasn't used instead of discretionary sanctions for the MoS. The problem will lie in the behaviour of admins, some of whom either don't understand the WP:INVOLVED policy or choose to disregard it. There was an unfortunate incident last year in which an admin who has axes to grind WRT MoS indulged in patent CoI in closing an RM, refused to acknowledge the policy breach, and got off scott-free, supported by admin friends. Will admins actually observe the CoI rule properly in relation to this remedy? Will the ambit of CoI include acting where they have a significant opinion about an issue or about MoS in general, even though not previously expressed? There is now new opportunity for them to push their own views over specific aspects of the MoS by over-zealous use of this privilege.But of course, the supreme irony is that the place where discretionary sanctions are more likely to be needed is WP:TITLE, the very page not covered. I just don't get it.  Tony     (talk)   13:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It was clear from the start of this case that this has been about ongoing behavior at the various MOS pages since the date delinking case, only with evidence focusing on TITLE and resolving the immediate issues. Limiting the case only to TITLE would have not solved the long-running problems with the MOS "enforcement". --M ASEM  (t) 13:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Date delinking? You're going to drag that in now?  I wasn't even aware of that one when it was going on. How is it relevant here?  Same with other MOS issues.  The only MOS involvement in this case was CAPS, and that I assumed would be taken care of by banning Pmanderson, without whose ban evasion it would not have been an issue; the focus should be on TITLE.  Dicklyon (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (e.c.) Masem, I'm perplexed as to why the date unlinking case dominates your perception of style guides and WP:TITLE: you refer to it again and again and again, despite the fact that the MoS, its subpages, and WP:TITLE have been the location of debates—a small minority of them heated—not just since 2009, but for many years before that. This is hardly surprising, since the whole idea of centralised style pages and WP:TITLE is to debate the unique, complex and multi-sided issues of style and formatting in an online encyclopedia. I apologise for speaking plainly to you, but you give every appearance of pushing a political line that we should be taking umbrage at the very idea of heated debate at such pages (whereas I've usually seen your contributions as even-handed and helpful at those pages). Sure, heated debate is generally undesirable, and action is sometimes required; but who, beyond Pmanderson, wants it to be in the form of dozens of local disputes at articles? So non-specific complaints about "behaviour" at MoS are not helpful—and your complaints are always non-specific, which is my point about Dohn joe's unreferenced, generalised claims above about my occasional visits to WP:TITLE ... very easy to smear someone that way, but somewhat harder to substantiate, and surprising given that Dohn joe is up to his ears in his own page-title reversions—talk about glass houses). You might have noticed that every time Pmanderson is banned from the pages, they return to being largely collegial and positive. While Mr Anderson can't be blamed for everything, and we've all made misjudgements, you might assume just a little more good faith about the many other editors who contribute to style and title pages. (I myself have no personal issue with any party in this case, including B2C.)Further, you've completely side-stepped my basic point: why is WP:TITLE completely ignored by the "remedies"—a gap that accords with your apparent political agenda (by coincidence, I think), when the committee says it was the "locus" that triggered the case, and gives an implied sense that the community might work through a few of the original issues there (beyond my ability to form a solid opinion on, so I sadly can't be of much help). Your helpfulness more generally would really be appreciated; you are one of the few editors who could push things along to a harmonious conclusion, as a positive force. Perhaps you don't realise how undermining some of your posts are; but by contrast, I'd certainly put my trust in you to supervise an RfC or two at WP:TITLE.  Tony     (talk)   15:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason that date-delinking is important is not the actual issues of date delinking, but that the behaviors identified there - but otherwise not called out or sought to be remedied beyond "work towards consensus" - are still prevailing here; they have persisted through the last two years. Yes, the focus of the case and immediate remedies is on TITLE. But the problems at TITLE exist throughout all the MOS pages in that two different specific set of editors (including those called out in case, but not limited to them) treat MOS as a unique type of BATTLEGROUND, impossible to say that anyone involved on either side is "wrong" when considering our behavioral policies; yet this attitude is what poisons any attempts to work out MOS resolutions. This is why I can't point fingers - both sides are "at fault" (as much weight as one can put to that in light of expected behavior) but there's no easy remedy for it that is otherwise overly excessive.   As ArbCom's put here, there are a few specific editors that have inflamed the TITLE debate, and thus remedies towards them make sense, but there's no point in calling any specific editors out otherwise, or fixing the solution towards any specific pages since the same occurs elsewhere in the MOS block - but with different editors at party to the various aspects.  Fixing TITLE would just be plugging one hole in a leaky dam out of many.  Hence, ArbCom's decision to opt for broader cautions rather than narrower remedies for the short term fix is the better long-term solution. --M ASEM  (t) 18:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "the focus of the case and immediate remedies is on TITLE" – er, I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem to be the case if one looks at the actual proposed remedies page. And I believe that's what Tony was talking about until you exhumed the Date delinking case. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 01:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Masem: Precisely. Ohconfucius: Actually, unless I've misunderstood, the reference to "MOS" is a drafting error; when we say MOS, we mean WP:TITLE. AGK  [•] 01:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Masem, again you accuse me by implication: "treat MOS as a unique type of BATTLEGROUND, impossible to say that anyone involved on either side is "wrong" when considering our behavioral policies". Now, I'm treating this as an attack. I want diffs. If you can't provide diffs, then do not accuse. It's very easy to smear in this way; it's beneath you.  Tony     (talk)   06:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've said before, there's numerous editors involved on both sides of the issue, and to the extent of the involvement, there's nothing that can be done per standard behavioral policies/guidelines because no one - outside of those specifically mentioned in the remedies of this Arbcom case - is acting far enough outside of those bounds and creating disruption to warrant community action. The problem is that MOS consensus issues keeps coming up again and again and again, and it is very difficult to point to a specific editor to say "it's your fault" - it takes two or more to tango effectively - and in the case of MOS, there's probably several dozens that could be called out which would make for a completely unmanageable case. Now, that said, I know Pmanderson has overly outspoken towards consensus building at MOS and perhaps this remedy to restrict their actions there will help fix the longer-term problems. Same type of thing with B2C. Am I (or anyone else) accusing anyone other editors? Heck no - if I to be able to make any accusations, I would be asking for some type of action, and there's nothing that can be done to any other specific editor, beyond perhaps the occasional trouting.  Everyone involved at MOS discussions (including myself) does need to be reminded that they are only guidelines (not hard rules), and built by consensus uniquely for en.wiki from best-of-breed approaches used elsewhere; TITLE may be the locus, but the same approach needs to be reminded to all of the MOS.  --M ASEM  (t) 07:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:TITLE is still missing from the judgement text in any meaningful way.  Tony     (talk)   13:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"evidence against other parties was weak"
Well, how much evidence can we submit in 500 words? :-( I didn't go looking for more evidence, because I knew I couldn't submit it if I found it. If I had thought the entire problem could have been laid at PMA and B2C's feet, I wouldn't have brought the case in the first place. Granted, it could have been just those two, with everyone else reacting to them, but... -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, to be fair to everyone it was partly mine (the drafting arb's) fault because I didn't take a good look at the evidence until too late. Had I kept up a bit better I would have asked for clarifications in regards to some assertions that were no adequately sourced or provided enough diffs, etc. It wasn't the volume that's the issue, it's the quality. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I sense from the above comments that sheer volume is, in the end, equivalent to low quality, because persuasion requires comprehension, and comprehension requires reading, and too much to read therefore means unpersuasive text. I would also point to the original statements and note how many of them specifically mentioned the sheer quantity of response as a problem. Mangoe (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Appeal already: "Locus of the dispute" finding
I'd like to appeal to the arbs to review the evidence with an eye toward refining the "finding of fact" that "This dispute concerns contentious edits to the MoS and article naming pages that have been occurring sporadically for years." There was nothing presented in evidence (though it was asserted in the original complain) that supports the idea that this case is about "contentious edits to the MoS". Most of the complaints were from JCScaliger, banned sock of Pmanderson, who was the actual cause of the problem as he pursued his vendetta against editors who were involved in the process where he got himself banned from commenting on MOS. The evidence section by Jojalozzo, "Policy and MOS harmed by Bold" starts with a link to an edit that I made, after discussion on the talk page, which was not contentious and not reverted, and after which he made a series of bold edits himself. He is only talking about MOSCAPS, and even there fails to show a problem other than the JCScaliger/Pmanderson problem. The section by ErikHaugen titled "Completely halting all edits to the MOS is not necessary for productive debate to occur" makes more sense in characterizing how MOS usually works OK in sorting out differences of opinion. The only other mention of MOS is where Noetica has linked an example of Born2cycle editing guidelines in his favor after losing an RM.

There is absolutely no evidence, and very little allegation, of any current or ongoing problem at MOS. Even the recent litte edit war and locking caused by JCScaliger at MOSCAPS is only briefly mentioned in evidence, by Jojalozzo, and that problem has been taken care of by blocking the offender.

If the locus of dispute is cleared up – it's TITLE – then the confusion of MOS with TITLE in the remedies will be easier to sort out correctly. Can we get the attention of arbs who have already voted on this please? I understand the situation is complex, and some editors, due to the JCScaliger/Pmanderson link, saw the problem at MOSCAPS as related to the problem at TITLE, but the fact is that the connection was mostly his vendetta against three of us. The real problem was at TITLE, which is what all the evidence and discussion has been about since getting JCScaliger out of the picture. Dicklyon (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I suppose this is a continuation of the conflation of MOS with TITLE on our part. We might have been too busy trying to work out what to do that we never realised TITLE stands separately from MOS; personally, I had them in my mind as one in the same. As with the other mentions of "MOS" when we mean "TITLE" (except for Pmanderson, who needs banned from both), we can resolve this with a copy-edit; I'll do that another day, in case another arbitrator reads this and wants to disagree. Thanks for your comments, AGK  [•] 01:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it matters but I think Dick has misinterpreted my evidence with respect to who was involved. I purposefully did not include the actors because I believe the problems go beyond personalities but I see that my evidence can be misunderstood because I do not clearly lay out the number of different actors involved. Here is the same evidence with user names:


 * DickLyon: 12/6 04:27, Intro changed to X after discussion on the talk page:
 * Michael C Price: 1/6 11:54, X is modified [introduces grammar error]:
 * Noetica: 1/7 00:13, Bold edit A made to intro and "under discussion" template added: ,
 * 1/7 - 1/23, Significant talk page discussion ensues on talk page led by A's author
 * 1/8 - 1/17, Simultaneous c/e sweeps of article body . This is the subject of simultaneous talk page discussions:, , , ,.
 * 1/16 - 1/21, Talk page discussion (#1) of lead sentence:
 * 1/19 - 1/20, Another talk page discussion (#2) of intro:
 * JCScaliger: 1/19 13:59, Lead sentence of A removed (per "discussion", I believe referring to #1, started 3 days earlier):
 * Jojalozzo: 1/19 15:40, Lead sentence of A replaced by non-author (me) (as "under discussion"):
 * JCScaliger: 1/19 16:39, Bold edit B made, replacing intro with a short sentence (per "discussion", I believe referring to #2, started 3 hours earlier): ,
 * Noetica: 1/19 21:12, A restored by A's author (B characterized as "non-consensual and contentious"): ,
 * Enric Naval: 1/19 23:16, B restored by non-author (disputes consensus claim, requests discussion): ,
 * Noetica: 1/19 23:42, A restored by A's author (asserts A support from "long, patient discussion" and B a product of "negligible discussion"): ,
 * Enric Naval: 1/20 01:01, B restored by non-author (B supported by "several well-reasoned arguments"): ,
 * Tony1: 1/20 6:38, A restored by non-author (asserts B is "undiscussed edit of long-standing guidance"): :
 * JCScaliger: 1/21 19:26, Bold edit C, lead completely deleted by B's author ("remove contested text altogether""): ,:
 * Noetica: 1/21 20:30, A restored by A's author (asserts A is "nearest to consensual") : ,
 * 1/23 - 1/25 Another talk page discussion of intro:
 * DickLyon: 1/26 16:10, Intro reverted to version X by X's author ("so we can talk about ... different directions of changes":
 * Joja lozzo  14:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * And if I had realized that JCScaliger was a sock of Pmanderson, I would have taken it back to the Jan. 7 through Jan. 19 version instead of earlier, since JCS/PMA was the only one objecting to Noetica's change, until he drew his old buddy Enric Naval in to help (Enric had sided with PMA and B2C in the en dash blowup, which they lost, and has been stalking me ever since, it feels like). So I screwed up.  Still, the problem was simply caused by  JCScaliger evading his ban.  Dicklyon (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

This whole little section seems like a microcosm of the whole problem that created this proceeding, in my view. Tony wants diffs, but there's nothing specific to point to really. The problem here is with the general attitudes of a select few (self appointed people at that), of which PMA and B2C are only two. There are innumerable examples of until he drew his old buddy in to help that are available to anyone who wants to look for them. Everything discussed on the talk pages within the scope of this proceeding ends up devolving down to the same bickering between the same people, and it's been that way literally for years now. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 04:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I had never interacted with any of these guys until about a year ago. The point remains:  without the ban evasion by JCS/PMA, the MOS would not be involved here at all. This were working quite smoothly and calmly there (MOSCAPS), very unlike TITLE.  The only reason it's part of the same case is that some of the same people were involved, and one of them stirred up trouble by evading his ban with a sock.  PMA/JCS shouldn't be allowed to thereby cast aspersions on the MOS and the well-intentioned people who care about it and work on it, but that's what happens if this ArbCom declares it to be the locus of the TITLE dispute.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not involved in the MOS issues very much, but your views seem contra-consensus in the area of capitalization too. For example, see Talk:Oregon_Coast where you (as nom), Tony (surprise!) and one other person are in the minority favoring lower-casing "Coast".  Isn't that typical? That appears to be the source of much contention there.  Just because PMA got blocked does not mean his view was not supported by consensus. Being in the minority is not a problem, per se, of course.  But coupled with other behavior (like reverting edits that have consensus support, and then refusing to discuss/explain) it does not become problematic, and, as I keep saying, at some point IDHT needs to apply.   --Born2cycle (talk) 06:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Workshop: I also looked at the workshop to see if there was anything there that associated the MOS with contentious editing or any other allegation. Besides David Fuchs's proposed "Locus of the dispute" that got copied to here, there's nothing except one place where "MOS" and "contentious" are associated with JCScaliger. The comments about MOS are benign motherhood and apple pie, which I have no objection to. But there's no allegation of a problem at MOS besides JCScaliger. All the associations of the words "contentious" and "contentiousness" are with TITLE, or "the policy", except that one about JCS at MOSCAPS. Without the disruptive sock, there's no problem at MOS. I'm not saying there's no dispute (in fact, Noetica and I disagreed there, as the talk page shows), just that there's not disruption or contentiousness; as Jojalozzo's diffs show, there's a lot of civil discussion, then JCS and some reverts. Hardly a big deal.

If this can be fixed with a copyedit as AGK suggested, no problem. But it's disconcerting to see 7 votes in favor of what is clearly a misunderstanding. Dicklyon (talk) 06:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion
I've gotta get back to work next week, so I really don't have the time (let alone the desire) to dig myself further into this proceeding. That being said, rather than simply sniping at things and leaving, I'd like to throw a suggestion out there for some of you folks to consider. I see AGK commenting up above, which kind of gave me this idea: why don't the half dozen or so (un-banned) people involved in this take it upon themselves to undertake some sort of mediation style... thing (process, I guess)? As I said above, I agree with the opinion that Dohn joe expressed in, which can be summarized to say something like: "There are approximately six editors who are driving this whole discussion: B2C, Dicklyon, Noetica, Kotniski, Tony1, and PMA/JCScaliger (who is probably going to be banned, but that's a side issue)." Tony is obviously a little perturbed at being mentioned in this group, but... it is what it is. I don't think anyone (and certainly not myself) wishes to get rid of all of these guys, but something has to be done so that they can collectively find more common ground. The constant bickering and grinding every little change and issue into dust is counter productive, in my view (heck, I think that Kotniski has given up because of it). — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 04:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm open for anything, but the bottom line is that Tony, Noetica and Dicklyon hold a minority view about titles - they favor making titles more descriptive even when it's not necessary for disambiguation - and do what they can for their view to prevail as often as possible. I find their efforts in that regard often to be highly disruptive, but I appear to be in the minority about that.I am in particular open to advice, and especially what I could have done differently in this case.  I mean, if you make a good faith edit that you're confident is supported by consensus (this was confirmed repeatedly in this case) and you're reverted, what do you do?  What I did was address the person reverting to find out why they reverted, to try to find consensus, but they refused to engage in discussion about that.  So now what?  Well, I thought/hoped they might be backing off since they had no argument, so I reverted the revert, but I got reverted again, by another person.  So I try to engage with them - same thing.  Others who joined in expressed support for my edit; nobody opposed.  They restored my version, but the reverters reverted that too.  I sought admin assistance at ANI; no one responded.  Others tried to get the reverters to explain their position, make a counter-proposal, etc., all to no avail.  This went on for days and then weeks.  Finally Greg L created a poll where the overwhelming consensus support for my edit, which was always there, finally became blatantly obvious to everyone.  But it took about a month to get there.In the last few weeks I've cut down my activity at WT:TITLE, and yet there is still no explanation or counter-proposal.  So much for the excuse that it was alleged dominance by me there that inhibited others from discussing. So, what should I have done instead of what I did?   What is the lesson here? --Born2cycle (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I read (or at least skimmed) that whole reply, but I basically stopped paying attention following but the bottom line is that .... That, right there, is indicative of the entire issue here. There's apparently a desire to carve out exacting boundaries to this case, but the usual suspects don't seem to be following their own desire to limit things to one or two talk pages. It's all one big mess, which I think makes this forum a perfect starting place to deal with things. Perhaps interestingly to some, from my perspective this dispute is limited to the group which it is by self selection. The six people that I named in my opening here are essentially the last people standing for what is essentially a sprawling, and exceedingly long lasting, marathon legislative session. "The Group" seems to agree with Dick's opinion that there's constructive debate occurring, but I certainly don't see it that way.
 * As for the "so what now?" question: it's a good question. In my experience, the only "so what now" response available is to simply walk away, honestly. I think that sucks, but it's a problem that Wikipedia has had in general for years now, and I don't see it being resolved here. The general problems with the Wikipedia community as a whole are a bit outside of the scope, let alone the reach, of the Arbitration Committee, aren't they? I guess one option that was (is?) available is to create an RFC. I realize that they're basically fool's errands, but they'll at least allow you to express your opinion and they (generally) won't land you at ArbCom. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 07:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Even though I find Masem's contributions on this page most unhelpful, I would actually be pleased if he volunteered to supervise a set of RfCs at TITLE. But there's no urgency with respect to the current simple algorthm-style rule, and there's prima facie value in the current simple and short titles without parentheses. The community could consider writing in a few exceptions, but this is really not high on my list of priorities, personally. Best to let it lie for a while, in my view, and let a wider group of editors contribute their opinions.Ohm's law I see above that you're persisting in including me as some kind of agent for trouble. In this drip-feed smearing without evidence—backed up by your compelling argument "it is what it is"—why stop at "six" editors? Perhaps you could explain just why you've chosen six as the golden number from this list, which doesn't even show word lengths. It would be too easy to reciprocate, especially in the case of Dohn joe, but accusing is not my style—I'd rather collaborate. And if I did have reason to accuse, I'd provide evidence (on the right page).B2C, I was favourable towards more descriptive titles until I realised (ahem, some time ago now) that it's very hard to balance against the need to prevent clutter, not to mention the undesirability of giving the green light to gnomes to putting descriptive parentheses in masses of articles. I just don't have an answer, so would rather others gave their opinions from the community.  Tony     (talk)   07:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not an "agent for trouble", but merely a consistent participant in "The Group". If you take that to be "drip-feed smearing"... shouldn't that inform your decision making somewhat? I'm not trying to tell you want to do or anything, but if it bothers you to be included in the group of "most active talk page participants" so much then why do you continue to be a member of that group? Nobody is forcing you to take part in this stuff, and Wikipedia certainly isn't going to fall over dead if you do. (Incidentally, I don't see the efforts from "The Group" as collaborative. You guys simply talk until everyone else gives up and leaves, is all. No number of diffs could possibly support this, my personal view... simply look at the history page of WT:TITLE or WT:MOS to observe what has actually occurred. Sorry. Shoot the messenger if you'd like, I won't be around these dungeons to care come next week anyway.) — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 08:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ohms law - "walk away" in a situation like this would mean anyone could prevail with a minority contrary-to-consensus position by challenging others, counting on them to "walk away". Sorry, but that's not a solution; to the contrary, it just exacerbates the problem.I think "you guys simply talk until everyone else gives up and leaves" is a red herring.  In the first few days of the dispute at TITLE, many editors chimed in, and all supported my edit.  They didn't give up.  All their opinions were there, one after another.    What I don't get is why that wasn't enough to convince Dicklyon, Tony and Noetica that my edit - the one they kept reverting - had consensus support.Finding, building, achieving and following consensus is key to the way we make decisions on WP.  The reason it fell apart in this case is because those in the minority, with views and/or behavior contrary to consensus (at a minimum they were reverting an edit that had consensus support), refused to recognize it, refused to admit it, refused to discuss it, and admins did not recognize that as disruptive behavior.  I ask again, what is one supposed to do in that situation (besides walk away)?I'm really happy to see that Tony has realized the main reason consensus opposes unnecessarily descriptive titles (more descriptive than necessary for disambiguation) - because there is no way to make some titles unnecessarily more descriptive without making title decision-making significantly more contentious than it already is.That is, there is nothing inherently wrong or problematic with a more descriptive title - the problem is in how to decide which titles should be more descriptive, and how much more descriptive, etc.  But that's besides the point. The point is that Tony, Dicklyon and Noetica reverted a consensus-supported edit of a policy page, and then refused to discuss it.  We can't find, build and follow consensus with behavior like that.  That's the problem, and I who tried everything he could think of to deal with this situation, and nothing worked, is the one being sanctioned.  Well, if I did something wrong, then I'd like to know what it was, and what I should have done instead.  Is that asking too much?  --Born2cycle (talk) 08:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I'll leave it at this point.  Tony     (talk)   09:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Above: Ohms Law wrote: "I read (or at least skimmed) that whole reply, but I basically stopped paying attention... "I can't even imagine responding to something that I didn't pay attention to, yet I'm the one who is being told to "talk less and listen more". If I wasn't paying attention to what others were saying, and was just going on and and on about whatever it was that I wanted to say, that suggestion might make sense. But here Oms Law admits to not paying attention to what I wrote, committee members haven't paid enough attention to realize my position was the one supported by consensus, or that TITLE is policy and MOS is just a guideline, much less appreciate how that difference affects community decisions.  Not to mention that this whole thing started with people who reverted a consensus-supported edit and refused to read the associated explanation.Oh, the irony.  --Born2cycle (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're talking too much. Disputants are welcome to use this talk page, but excessive or lengthy comments will probably not be read as promptly (if at all). We arbitrators are volunteers with limited time, and your brevity would be valuable. AGK  [•] 11:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll talk less if you'll listen more? Fair enough?  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * AGK, can you cut the "We don't have time to actually do the job we volunteered to do" crap? It's getting old. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sarek, what an odd interjection! Wasn't it you you said in the initial complaint that started this case that there was a "huge amounts of discussion spent on these topics"?  And isn't Born2cycle always accusing others of failure to discuss, or failure to answer his questions?  And don't lots of editors complain about his TL;DR "walls of text"?  And isn't he always asking for advice on how he can do better?  So what's wrong with AGK giving him the advice that being briefer would be more effective, as well as more respectful of the time of other volunteers?  Dicklyon (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What? I don't "always" accuse others of failure to discuss or failure to answer my questions.  In fact, if I'm not mistaken, this case (Dec 21, 2011) was the first time I ever did either.  Characterizing something that never (or almost never) happened before as happening always is misleading and disruptive, not to mention a violation of WP:NPA ("Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence").  Please retract.As to my TLDR posts... what does that have to do with this case?  I made my edit of the recognizability criterion at WP:TITLE in good faith, knowing it had consensus support (as was later confirmed), but still explained it on the talk page per BRD.  You, Noetica and Tony opposed and reverted for no reason other than because it was me who made the edit.  Foolishly, I and others tried to get you guys to explain your objection so your concerns could be addressed, over and over, to no avail.  Yes, some of those efforts lead to TLDR comments.  Sorry, but what else could I do? What should I have done instead?  Quit WP, as Kotniski did because of your "appalling behavior"?  Is that what you're trying to do?None of this explains how your reverts of a consensus-supported edit was justified - and why it required way more evidence of consensus support than I've ever seen for such a minor edit (Greg L's poll), and the threat of block from Elen, for you to stop reverting.  --Born2cycle (talk) 03:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This google search finds about 5 places, on the first page of 10 hits, where you were telling people that they didn't answer your question. And here's a "refuse to discuss".  By "always", I only meant "repeatedly";  it's an idiom.
 * As for "what else could I do? What should I have done instead?", you could have waited more than 68 minutes between starting the fracas and taking it to WP:AN. You could have followed the advice given there by admin Gwen Gale: "Take it to the talk page and wait for some input."  You could have paid attention to the substance of the advice you got there, instead of "hatting" it as "non-substantive; personal attacks; violation of AGF".  When I wrote "If you want to be productive, you could do as we suggested; stop edit warring the guideline change, make a proposal, and wait for some discussion", you marked it done and hatted it and ignored it, without making a proposal or waiting. When I suggested "let others speak for themselves", you re-added their comments out of context as votes.   It's not like people aren't giving you advice on what you could do instead of what you're doing.  Just saying...  Dicklyon (talk) 05:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering how much I've posted, that's really nothing, especially considering most of them are of the form, "Can anyone please answer my question", and have nothing to do with complaining about others' behavior. But yeah, in a handful of countless discussions over the years I did point out that my question was not answered.  Sorry I didn't remember them.  But unless you're saying all that amounts to a problem, what's your point? How would following the advice to wait more than 68 minutes have changed anything? After over a month went by and over a dozen editors voted unanimously in a poll in support of my edit, Elen still had to threaten you with a block to keep you guys from continuing to object and revert.  If it took that to stop you, what makes you think me posting less would have stopped you?   --Born2cycle (talk) 07:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sarek: I said nothing of the sort. However, it's true that we have limited time and excessive commentary can't be followed - and you require a reality check if you think otherwise (or that such does not apply in this case). AGK  [•] 01:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Couple of comments
Two comments for now: Hopefully the above can be clarified in the final decision, but what I really hope is that it will be possible to lay down a benchmark that individual editors over-specialising and clashing with others within that specialisation, is in the long run a bad thing. Having individuals, or small groups, ending up as the 'go to' people for particular issues is anti-thetical to the whole ethos of Wikipedia, which should be based on large collaboration, wide participation, and as flat a hierarchy as possible, rather than incessant and never-ending debate between small groups. Carcharoth (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (1) The quote Newyorkbrad gives in his vote for the first FoF is excellent ("the purpose of a style guide "is defeated when the form book becomes so complex that considerable time is spent studying, consulting, extrapolating from, and resolving contradictions in it.""). That really should be taken to heart by those who treat the Manual of Style (and related pages) as a venue to discuss the intricacies of various stylistic conventions. The basic problem here is that some editors over-specialise in style issues, setting themselves up as experts (deserved or otherwise) in this area, and seem to enjoy engaging in discussion and debate more than actually reaching resolution, and moving forward, and producing something of use to the majority, who just want to write articles. The same holds true of title discussions, as those seem to attract both debaters and admins who like to 'specialise' in this area. My view has long been that over-specialisation can lead to the loss of perspective. But gently moving people away from an area they may have spent years on (hence the personalisation of some of the discussions, as the same old names come up again and again), and suggesting they try other things, is not easy.
 * (2) WP:TITLE is separate from the WP:MOS. It is a common mistake to think that the former is part of the latter, but this is not the case currently, was not the case historically (when the two started), and this case shouldn't perpetuate this mistaken meme. It is true that article naming conventions (i.e. WP:TITLE) include aspects that are part of a manual of style, but they also contain aspect of content policies (which is why WP:TITLE is included there). It is better to think of them as overlapping, rather than one being part of the other. This is, I believe, the reason WP:TITLE is policy: the title of an article has implications for the WP:NPOV presentation of an article. The example usually used is the name of a country and the various naming controversies (Macedonia, Ireland), which some arbitrators will be familiar with. Those are, in essence, controversies over the content of the title, not the style. This fact that article name discussions can involve issues of content is why it is incorrect to label the whole of WP:TITLE as part of the Manual of Style.


 * Carcharoth, I think you and Newyorkbrad are extrapolating from memories of some previous unpleasantness, not relevant to this case, when you discuss MOS. It's true that Tony and I do a lot of editing to move things toward the style specified in the MOS, but that work is not often controversial; only a very few of our edits and moves are objected to or reverted.  And the discussions that ensue are not generally related to any complexity in the MOS, but rather to the relationship between the guidelines and evidence in sources (like at Talk:Oregon Coast, which B2C points at now as somehow a problem).  There is absolutely nothing in this Arb case to support your comment that "The basic problem here is that some editors over-specialise in style issues."  There is exactly one editor who really does specialize in nothing but TITLE, however, so I've glad you've made that distinction clear.  Born2cycle has stayed clear of MOS, except for the brief foray where he attempted to outlaw all dashes that his keyboard doesn't have keys for, (redacted).  Dicklyon (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "he totally owns and drives TITLE and its talk page" - this (incorrect and absurd) opinion of Dicklyon's, which he often repeats and uses as an excuse for his behavior, including reverting my consensus-supported edits to policy without even reading much less considering my explanation on the talk page - is why he treats WP, at least where I'm concerned, as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Born2cycle, his comment may be hyperbolic (I've redacted it), but it is the rankest hypocrisy to throw an excessive counter-accusation in response. Please think before you type. AGK  [•] 01:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Carcharoth, thanks for your comments. 1. I agree, but we have found it difficult to come out and say "stop fetishising MOS: it's just a style book", because the guidelines play a useful role. 2. I did some copy-editing to resolve the conflation of TITLE with MOS. AGK  [•] 01:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment about Proposed principle 4
How is that not a negation of WP:IAR? Maybe it should use something narrower than "Behavior that violates Wikipedia's policies", say "Disruptive behavior" or "Behavior that violates the spirit of Wikipedia's policies" or something. ― A. di M.​  18:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Born2cycle warned
Okay, I'm very upset about this.

This section states: Born2cycle is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors.

This is supported by AGK, Elen of the Roads, Jclemens, Courcelles and now PhilKnight.

So about this statement I ask each or any of you:


 * 1) How was I not receptive to compromise in this case?
 * 2) *I contend I was at least as receptive as anyone else to compromise, probably more.
 * 3) What compromise was offered that I was not receptive to?
 * 4) *I contend that no compromise was offered, much less one to which I was not receptive.
 * 5) Whose views was I not tolerant of, and what were those views?
 * 6) *I find this to be especially upsetting. Tolerant?  I bend over backwards to be not only merely tolerant of others' views, but to read everything others say, and really understand it, and give it as much consideration as is reasonably possible.  Frankly,  I find this to be outrageous.  It feels like you guys are going by vague impressions of what was going on rather than by what was actually going on.  What did I say or do that caused any of you to believe I was not tolerant of someone's views?

If these questions about this statement cannot be answered, then I request that it be removed, because without answers to these questions, it's meaningless and pointless; certainly not helpful.

Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If you want to hear from another arbitrator then please say so, but otherwise I'll take this one (I'm used to justifying decisions from my time at arbitration enforcement); however, it goes without saying that I can't speak for the other arbitrators.I took my lead from the worrying portfolio of evidence given in this case. Frankly, the problem is that, while you seem open in principle to discussion and compromise, in practice you never make a concession or admission to any other editor who is not on "your side". Whilst it may be that you are unfailingly and wholly correct in every comment you make, the most likely conclusion is that you simply aren't open enough to collaboration and compromise, which is extremely concerning to see in a Wikipedia contributor.Here, you shout down User:Milkunderwood, asking if they "are serious?". Here, you forum-shopped with respect to a move about Iodised salt to Idoized salt (for whatever it's worth, I would find it a blatant Americanism to see it spelt with an s, so I disagree with much of what you said there, but I'm not sure how far that plays out in other nations). Here, you essentially badgered a closing administrator who did not support your proposal in their decision; although you say "I don't mean to be a nag, I'm just puzzled", the impression I get is that you can't help but pursue any dissent with your views.As with many such cases, such actions are not worrying of themselves, but taken as a whole they show a significant problem that we cannot fail to address in our decision. There are countless other examples, and all demonstrate the attitude that underlies your discussion about article titling, stylistics, and most associated subjects. In this context, a warning that you need to be more receptive to compromise in a situation where your view is not obviously the only acceptable one seems rather understandable. AGK  [•] 01:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to say that (and you'll have to excuse the phrase here, dear reader, since I'm personally very atheist), "If not for the grace of God" then I'd be in B2C's shoes myself. Online I'm fairly talkative and somewhat verbose, in a similar manner as B2C is. I don't know him beyond what I've seen on this website, as we've never meet prior, either online or in person, at least that I'm aware of. That being said, I recognize a lot of myself in what I see him saying. From my perspective, I think that he's being railroaded a little bit here, although admittedly he is bringing it on himself a little bit. To B2C directly I'd say this: first, I understand what you're saying, and I think that I understand why you're a bit frustrated. Second, I've also come to understand over the years (mostly though interactions outside of Wikipedia) why some others feel the way that they do about you. There's something about the written word... you're kinda forced to pay attention to what others say (unlike in verbal communication, where we tend to learn how to tune out what we don't want to hear). That being the case, I've learned over the years to simply accept that some people just don't want to listen. Meaning basically what I said above: walk away. Again, like I said earlier, that sucks, but... you'll live to "fight" (metaphorically) another day. That's my take on things, at least. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 04:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but the walk away advice seems contrary to the spirit of WP, which is about resolving conflicts by building consensus through discussion. You can't do that by walking away every time someone expresses a different view, especially when its a minority view that disagrees with the consensus view.  --Born2cycle (talk) 06:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * AGK, now you've really confused me. I thought this case was about what happened at MOS and TITLE, and the people involved in both (I was only involved in TITLE).  My questions above were in regard to what evidence there was about my behavior at TITLE that supported the statement about me. Regarding the forum shopping you accuse me of - what does that have to do with this case at all?  Anyway, I don't see how what I did there constitutes forum shopping, especially considering I started that discussion after the RM discussion in question was closed.  Regarding our apparent difference of opinion there (by the way, did you notice how I changed my opinion at that RM discussion?), I trust you're not holding that against me.In regard to my response to Milkunderwood, you ignore the context.  He was objecting to edits as being "under discussion" after an RFC poll showed an extremely rare unanimous support for those edits.  I really truly was flabbergasted, and did wonder if he was serious.  What's wrong with that?  In retrospect, I think he was just confused.Regarding what you call "badgering" an admin, what about WP:ADMINACCT?  It says: "Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.".  Was I uncivil?  Did I make a personal attack?  Were my questions not made in good faith?  You're not the first one to imply that questioning and criticizing admins is problematic.  I find that disturbing.  Is that why I'm being railroaded here? But my main question is this.  I recognize I sometimes take too many words to say what I want, and people tend to tune out.  Okay, but is that so bad?  More importantly, how would my posting less at WT:TITLE have changed anything there?  Would Dicklyon, Noetica and Tony1 have backed off if someone else restored the consensus-supported recognizability wording?  The evidence indicates otherwise.  Why is there not more focus on their behavior?  Their behavior, not mine, caused all the consternation, not only at TITLE, but also at MOS and countless RM discussions.  If you don't see that, you're not looking very hard.  --Born2cycle (talk) 06:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Born2cycle, please understand; you've been found guilty by ArbCom of making "excessive responses" (whatever that is; it sure isn't codified anywhere) and violating "the spirit of WP:BRD" (which isn't policy or even a guideline, just an essay). With this case, ArbCom has come up with an arbitrary, uncodified standard that must be followed; don't make excessive responses. In this thread alone you've already posted three times. You've been warned about this; I strongly suggest you not violate excessive responses again. You are walking on thin ice. Nobody has any idea how thin that ice is because nobody anywhere has any basis for evaluating what constitutes "excessive responses". Perhaps we should follow WP:3RR as a guide, and avoid posting more than three times in a thread within 24 hours. Call it WP:3R (3 three responses). Maybe we need a warning tag too, like uw-3rr to help keep people inline who are excessively responding. No doubt, some of ArbCom will believe I'm violating WP:PEDANTIC (excessively pedantic) and being absurd. Of course, a mirror is useful which is the point of my post here; "excessive responses" is an absurd metric, and ArbCom is way out of line in finding someone in violation of this non-existent standard. Then, to further on sanction you for violating it and violating an essay is illustrative of the ArbCom we currently have. My serious advice to you is to drop it, and walk away. No amount of effort on your part will result in this injustice being rectified. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Some observations and a suggestion
I haven't bothered to look back at these pages for quite a while, and while I'm not particularly surprised to find the same-old-same-old being endlessly repeated, I am surprised that it is being allowed.


 * This whole thing is TL;DR for me, so the impressions I have are just that: impressions.
 * It seems to me that Born2cycle is being unfairly singled out for rebuke, on the basis of his volubility - which is annoying personally to me, and apparently to nearly everyone else. But I do not see him as being disruptive.
 * I still don't see why Noetica, Dicklyon and Tony1 are assumed to be operating as a cabal. If they are, it has not been apparent to me.

Since everyone is repeating themselves, I will take the opportunity to also repeat myself here:
 * The basic problem underlying this entire mess is not a dispute between two factions, but lies in a misapplication of BRD.
 * WP:TITLE is a policy. WP:MOS is a guideline. WP:BRD is an essay.

I propose adding language something like the following to the lead at BRD:
 * Wikipedia policies and guidelines are essentially different from articles on encyclopedia topics in that they are very precisely phrased, and govern the procedures for all edits made throughout the encyclopedia. While it is not expressly forbidden to follow this "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle" in making edits to any policy or guideline, it will almost always be preferable to first start a discussion on the talk page for the policy or guideline.

OK, this is too wordy and long, in my proposed phrasing. But I'm convinced that adding something to this effect would cut out a huge proportion of these endless squabbles. Milkunderwood (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Milk, I did start a discussion when I made my edit, and that edit was immediately reverted. So within minutes of my edits, we were in the situation that you advocate - a discussion started on the talk page.  In that talk page discussion, everyone who commented substantively about the change, supported it.   But the non-cabal kept objecting, non-substantively, and when we tried to re-apply the edit obviously supported by consensus, they again reverted.  This went on and on for weeks, and was only resolved when Elen of the Roads threatened them with a block if they reverted again.  So I don't see how the problem is lack of discussion first. The other thing is that one of the reasons BRD works is sometimes it takes a bold edit to get others engaged.  If you just start a discussion it often gets ignored.  This is just as true for policy pages as it is for article pages.  But BRD works when those objecting participate in the D part.  In this case they did not, but continued to object.  That was the problem.My hope here is that the Arbs will recognize and rule that Reverting a Bold edit and then not engaging in substantive discussion about the bold edit during the Discussion phase of BRD is a form of Disruptive Editing (as I've been misunderstood about this before, let me clarify that I'm not saying the reverters need to initiate discussion about their revert, but if the proponents of the bold edit do start a discussion, it's disruptive for the reverters to not engage, especially if they continue to revert as evidence of consensus support for the edit piles on in the discussion).  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know the full history, and I'm not going to go back and look. You say you did start a discussion when you made your edit. From my perspective, this is precisely the problem. No edits at all should be made to the policy or MoS page until suggestion, discussion, and rough consensus have first been achieved on the talk page. Otherwise it just gets everyone's backs up, and you've already set yourself up for a quarrel. So step 1, open a new section on the talk page and make a suggestion for change in wording, and discuss why this change would be an improvement. Wait a week for comments. If none are forthcoming, think of a better-watched page to advertise your suggestion. If after say, another week, there's still little or no response, then go ahead and edit the page. Going in BOLDly and making a change to a policy or guideline page just pisses people off, and unnecessarily makes it all that much harder to discuss or find any consensus. And there's never any big hurry to fix whatever appears to be wrong or deficient on these pages. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am with you but I do not think that arbcom is the place to make the changes that are required. I think we need propose the changes to the tags for policy, guidelines and BRD pages that will warn off those who would employ BRD for policy and guidelines. Joja  lozzo  21:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Obviously you're right that this suggestion falls outside the scope of this Arbcom. If my points about Born2cycle, and the 3-person cabal, are useful, then good.
 * Further to B2C: My impression is that "substantive" as opposed to "non-substantive" comment is 99% in the eye of the beholder. Your own accusations could equally be dismissed as "non-substantive". They're certainly destructive to achieving amicable consensus. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What I mean by "substantive" is any comment that talks about the content of the edit in question and why it should or should not be accepted. Non-substantive comments are about anything else, like reasons to object to the edit that have nothing to do with the content it adds, changes or removes, like those based on who made the edit, or when it was made. Yes, in some cases there are gray areas about this, but usually it's pretty clear.  In this case there is no question about it.   And I really wish you, and everyone involved in this case, would take the few minutes required to review how it all started in this case (see my submitted evidence).You ignored my point about how the bold edit part of B helps to stimulate discussion.I should add in this case that there was no question about consensus support for the change I was making, as it had already been part of the policy, and was clearly taken out inadvertently (as part of an effort to "simplify" wording without changing meaning), and nobody noticed or realized the ramifications of its removal when it happened.  I explained all this in that initial talk page comment which you'll see if you review as I just suggested.At any rate, making edits to policy without discussing first is the norm and has been the norm (for better or worse, the vast majority of all policy edits are done without discussion first, which makes it the de facto norm).  Even if consensus develops for your idea, it really has no application to this case, since it was not the accepted consensus norm at the time I made the edit.  BRD certainly was.Finally, even if we started off on the wrong leg because I made the edit and started the talk page discussion simultaneously (exactly as BRD recommends) rather than just starting on the talk page, we should have recovered from that in a few days if not a few hours or even minutes.  That it took weeks indicates something else was going on.  I call it  Status quo stonewalling.  Also, consider this.  If someone makes a proposal, no one has any obligation to comment.  If someone edits, and you revert, and you're asked why you reverted, don't you agree the reverter has an obligation to explain why? And substantively?  I mean, reverting with "discuss first" and no substantive explanation is just a form of a WP:JDLI argument, don't you think?   --Born2cycle (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Finding 4 - losing all my confidence
Finding 4 states: Born2cycle's editing on the disputed pages and related subjects has hampered efforts at resolution, specifically by excessive responses and not following the spirit of WP:BRD.

Can someone (and it would be nice to hear from someone other than AGK who has gotten plenty wrong, but at least he seems to be taking this somewhat seriously) please clarify/explain how my editing has "hampered efforts at resolution, specifically by excessive responses and not following the spirit of WP:BRD."?

It was not my edits that hampered efforts at resolution at WP:TITLE - it was the edits (specifically the reverts) of Noetica, Tony and Dicklyon, as well as their non-substantive commentary (they would not discuss the content being added or why it should or should not be added) at WT:TITLE that hampered efforts at resolution there. Again, it was my edit and argument that clearly had consensus support from Day 1. They disrupted that, for weeks, until Elen of the Road threatened them with a block if they continued to revert. To accuse me instead of them of hampering resolution there is preposterous. I remind you again, it was their outrageous behavior that caused Kotniski to quit, and you're looking at me? If you're wondering why WP is losing so many editors, look no further than your own work on this case.

If you're not talking about TITLE, what are you talking about? I didn't see any evidence about my behavior elsewhere submitted here. The "disputed pages and related subjects" phrase is ridiculously vague.

As far as not following the spirit of BRD, what does that mean? I think BRD is great. I reread it specifically prior to this edit to policy and followed it to the t. This is the specific part of BRD that applies to what I did:
 * Try to make the edit and its explanation simultaneous: Many people will first make an edit, and then explain it on the talk page. Somehow there will always be some fast-off-the-hip reverter who manages to revert you right in the middle, before you have time to complete your explanation. To try to prevent this, reverse the order, first edit the talk page, and then make your edit immediately afterward. This way your explanation will already be there at the moment of the expected revert. Don't hesitate between the two actions though, since for some reason people tend to be accused of bad faith if they do that. Best of all, if the page has little activity right now, you might be able to prepare edits to page and talk page summary, and save them simultaneously.

That's exactly what I did. I had the policy page edit and talk page edit in separate tabs, and hit SAVE on both moments apart. Then my edit was reverted, but those reverting (Dicklyon, Noetica, Tony1) refused to take part in the D part of BRD (in a substantive manner). I followed the letter of BRD, they blatantly ignored it altogether, but you say I did not follow "the spirit" of BRD??? What is the "spirit of BRD" that I missed??? This is simply inexplicable.

I'm sorry, but I'm really starting to wonder about this. Are you people even familiar with what happened in the case you're supposed to be evaluating? You've gotten so much backwards and wrong, I really have to wonder. Others have noted that I have been "railroaded" here and not treated fairly. I'm losing all my confidence in what you're doing.

I don't know if there is an appeal process to whatever you decide, or what it is, but if there is one, and you follow through with this absurd finding, I assure you I am going follow every appeal avenue there is. So please, explain yourselves. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

"You have enemies? Good."
Elen of the Roads wrote: "Born2cycle was the subject of a monumental amount of complaints for his editing at the Yoggit rfc

I presume she means Yogurt. I am very proud of my hard work at Talk:Yogurt. That conflict lasted eight years, and I was instrumental in getting it finally resolved, particularly with the creation of Talk:Yogurt/yogurtspellinghistory. My impetus there was not one spelling or another, but getting a conflict resolved. My work at Talk:Sega Genesis, (which also lasted for years before I got involved) was similar, including the FAQ there which I also completely rewrote, and at countless other RM discussions. Yogurt was much more difficult because of how strongly some felt about retaining the one spelling. Of course, at each of these, there are some who disagree with my position, and many end up complaining. People get pissy when they don't get their way. At Yogurt there were almost a dozen different RM discussion over the better part of a decade, each always ending up in no consensus. With much work, following the advice at WP:CONSENSUS using persuasion to build consensus, we finally got a real consensus decision there, and you blame me for that? Elen seems to be looking at the number of complaints, rather than their quality, considering the absolute dearth of any evidence of my acting inappropriately. I've never been sanctioned for anything, and now you guys are going to warn me because of people who complain about me because I stand up for something and they disagree?

At TITLE, my position is strongly supported by consensus (I never push a position very hard unless it's supported by consensus).

This is how you treat editors who do the thankless job of resolving difficult and longstanding conflicts?

If I did something wrong or inappropriate at Yogurt, TITLE or anywhere else, I would really like to know what specifically it is. These vague and dubious allusions to something about which others complained are not helpful at all. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)