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

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

Are 1RR and 0RR incompatible with BRD?
Under BRD there should be a bold edit, then one revert followed by discussion. Many edit wars occur when the bold editor (or another editor) reverts the revert instead of discussing it. I don't see how either 0RR or 1RR ensures that BRD process is followed. 0RR prevents anyone from reverting a bold edit so it remains in place (for 24 hours at least). 1RR allows one revert of a bold edit and then allows the bold editor one revert (of the revert) to restore the bold edit but disallows the initial reverter from reverting the bold restoration (since it would be the initial reverter's second revert). Under either 0RR or 1RR, the bold edit will remain and no discussion need occur - basically either a B RD (0RR) or a BRR D (1RR) process. I hope I am misunderstanding this, but if not, how would 0RR or 1RR policies help us in this case? Joja lozzo  00:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 0RR is inconsistent, 1RR is not; the discussion should take place beginning with the first revert. Either restriction gives an advantage (although often a temporary one) to new wording, as does 3RR; I believe that is intentional. JCScaliger (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. So we are mainly looking at 0RR or 1RR to reduce churning. These restrictions don't encourage BRD, though 1RR still allows for it. And 1RR doesn't address the main problem I have seen where the bold editor restores the reverted content instead of discussion. Joja  lozzo  01:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We should mostly look at it to reduce WP:OWN violations; banning the egregious WP:OWN violators is only a start, since all too many MOS regulars have picked up the same bad habits. No, they don't encourage BRD; that's why I've proposed 1RR if and only if the reverter discusses. JCScaliger (talk) 03:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Authority of policy
Several proposals are intended to prevent people from making up their own policy and then enforcing it everywhere. I don't think there is any substitute for stopping that problem at its source: watch policy and guideline pages, revert anything that's too bossy without sufficient consensus, and find enough like-minded editors to overcome any cliques. Rules that say policy isn't policy introduce a contradiction that could fuel endless debate about whether anything really means anything any more. Sure, policy should reflect consensus, but that's all the more reason to watch that policy to make sure it really does reflect consensus. Art LaPella (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Too late. Much bossiness is already written in, and some editors will read bossiness into text which doesn't have it.  The series of moves on capitalization are (quite literally) being justified by "Per WP:MOSCAPS" when the only relevant sentence to many of them is "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization".


 * Once something is written into the enormous mass of MOS and its subpages, and has sat there for three to six months, the pedant who wrote it will claim that it "needs consensus to alter a guideline" and of course he will never consent. Two or three of these acting together, and we have - well - the present problem. JCScaliger (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that MOS isn't Policy, any of it. I don't see any proposal to make it so; did its fans suspect that such a proposal would lead to having to show actual consensus for the text? JCScaliger (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe its an even bigger problem that goes beyond MOS isn't policy, because much of what is actually in WP:TITLE isn't policy either, its a bunch of conflicting "how to guidance and essay material" that lends itself to selective interpretation and gets invoked as policy. Combine that with multiple policy elements that in many cases result in intractable alternatives when alternatives are defended with different policy elements. Policy interpretation ought to be unequivocal while its application however is always contextual. The great majority of our policies function this way.   WP:CIVIL is unequivocal and easy to interpret--we don't tolerate uncivil behavior. How we deal with it and determining what is civil and what is uncivil is a contextual discussion, but the policy is clear.  Other important policies can be seen in the same light--WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, etc.  The policy in these is unequivocal and easily interpreted while application is contextual.  If we ever want WP:TITLE to function as a clear statement of easily interpreted policy, we've got to rewrite it, because it doesn't function that way today. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you think that's a good idea, do suggest it on the talk page. I think TITLE does a fairly good joh of summarizing what RM dicussions actually look for (including Recognizability), and that much should be policy, informing the guidelines. But perhaps this will help get to A di M's mininal TiTLE, once the page is unprotected. JCScaliger (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Much bossiness is already written in". Sure; even MOS regulars are usually unaware of their own 1.4 megabytes of MOS including subpages. Let's fix it. If policies or MOS guidelines are unfixable, then we shouldn't have them. The worst of both worlds is to have policies and guidelines, and then insist that the newest elite are above them. Art LaPella (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm seeing your wistful comments as I scan through. It would be nice if MOS agreed with itself; it would be even nicer if this were not done by demanding that the subpages be rewritten every time that somebody wins a revert war on MOS. (See the bottom of WT:MOSCAPS for an example.) I have been reluctant to propose any such thing; there would be consensus among the regulars (except you) against it. But it would cut the Gordian knot. JCScaliger (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by User:JCScaliger
Moved from workshop page by clerk --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * WP:NOTLAW JCScaliger (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * WP:POL JCScaliger (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators


 * Comment by parties
 * WP:Consensus. (Quoted in the long-established form)


 * Comment by others

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


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


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


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


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


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


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


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


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


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


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


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


 * Comment by others:

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


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


 * Comment by others:
 * I believe WP:POLICY is much more prescriptive than this proposal. So either the policy or the proposal should change to match each other. Art LaPella (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that WP:POLICY is inconsistent with this proposal, which is practice. However, what I said was not addressed to core policy, which may have a different status. Having to debate that issue first, before acknowledging this commonplace, is a recipe for infinite delay. Since the relevant texts of WP:POLICY link directly to WP:IAR, which is core policy, the overall position of policy on this is extraordinarily debateable. JCScaliger (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * WP:No consensus, continued from Masem's quotation. JCScaliger (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this actual practice or just the essayists opinion? Seems easy to game and get content we don't like removed. Joja  lozzo  04:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
{text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
{text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


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


 * Yes, this is the type of detail concerned here. JCScaliger (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Apropos of nothing: I frequently hear the vegetable called Brussel sprouts (without the first s) :). AGK  [•] 22:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A predictable change; one s sound is easier to say. Spelling is unlikely to follow until English adopts Febuary [sic], which is also easier to say. JCScaliger (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


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


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


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I don't think so, Tim. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This very long post by SMcCandlish alleging that one commonly used style is restricted to "English or some other hidebound liberal artsy course[s]," which is certainly nonsense (for example, CMOS recommends the one in question). But the whole page (WT:MOS/Archive 93), and inceed all of MOS discussion on "logical quotation" are worth reading.JCScaliger (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Comment by others:
 * I don't see how it is helpful to state this. Mangoe (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it is helpful to whitewash it away. We are not dealing with calculating machines; these are editors who want MOS to enforce their esthetic preferences, even when they are the only ones who share them. JCScaliger (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"Familiarity" is and was consensus
Some language including the idea of "familiarity" was, and is, consensus at WP:TITLE.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


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


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


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


 * Comment by others:
 * Comment by others:

Noetica rewrites policy on consensus.
2) Noetica has rewritten Wikipedia policy on consensus to suit his views.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Buried in [this compound series of minor and trivial edits] is the introduction of a novel phrase, italicized below.
 * " Unless a discussion regarding a claim of "no consensus" is undertaken on the discussion page, an edit summary of "no consensus" or "not discussed" is not helpful, except possibly on pages that describe long-standing Wikipedia policy."


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


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


 * Comment by others:

Noetica revert wars
Noetica revert wars on policies and guidelines, often without discussion.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


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


 * Comment by others:
 * Comment by others:

Dicklyon revert wars
Dicklyon revert wars on policies and guidelines, often in support of Noetica, or for leverage in current discussions.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * See my evidence on talk.


 * In addition, there was his sequence of reverts on MOSCAPS, to make it say Halley's comet, beginning immediately before he proposed a move, citing that guideline. He was, naturally, blocked for a week, but continued to revert when he returned. To his credit, he stopped when reported to AN3, before violating 3RR. JCScaliger (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Greg: it is this sort of edit, getting a guideline to endorse one side or another in a current dispute, which makes me dislike examples. JCScaliger (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Closely knit clique
Tony, Noetica, and Dicklyon form a closely knit clique of editors, often at odds with other editors.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


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


 * Comment by others:
 * Comment by others:

Overwrought and abusive language
Tony, Noetica, and Dicklyon use overwrought and abusive language.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Noetica's attacks in the Catholic Memorial School Case are in evidence: Noetica writes about a minority weakening Wikipedia, makes two personal attacks on Powers, comparing him to the programmed behavior of an insect, explains the metaphor (no sign of retraction; Tony calls it a lovely explanation), protests reopening of discussion, and  asserts special authority for "MOS specialists".


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


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

Further examples will follow; different editors seem to have been "subverting" and "weakening" MOS' "authority" ever since TDN arrived.
 * Weaken:
 * Tony: MOS is weakened, vastly weakened the authority of the MOS, weakening the function of style guidance.


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

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


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

Tony, Noetica, and Dicklyon don't play well with others
Tony, Noetica, and Dicklyon have quarrelled with several editors.


 * Comment by Arbitrators


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


 * Comment by others

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


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


 * Comment by others:
 * Comment by others:

Dicklyon's poll
While this case was open, Dicklyon created a third poll at WP:TITLE, a week after the second. This omitted the wording which had been consensus in the others; the only mention of familiarity was in a proposal (which Dicklyon called Post-Modern), which was his own wording, never proposed by anybody else.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Dicklyon set up a redundant poll, in terms which were likely to deter consensus on the option endorsed by the other two polls. He devised his own polling rules, including ones which "entitled" him, as "moderator" to edit the posts of the contributors; not only refactoring, but to remove preferences.


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


 * Comment by others:

Dicklyon refactoring
Dicklyon refactored JCScaliger's edit without asking, and declined to restore it when asked. The complete story is here.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


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


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


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


 * Comment by others:

Noetica refactoring
Noetica edited Born2cycle's edits several times, without his consent, and over his protests. Dicklyon helped.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


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

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


 * Comment by others:
 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Comment by others:

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

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This has now been suggested on the evidence page, and referred to above. I still don't think it is the best solution; but it is a solution. Those who get their fun out of being legislators will find a hobby where it is welcome. After that, we can resume under WP:NOTLAW.JCScaliger (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What reason is there to assume that MOS, as it exists, is a net benefit to the encyclopedia? Certainly we have no evidence to that effect. As it is now conducted, it does not reflect consensus; it reflects the most determined revert warring. JCScaliger (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This creates work for admins and will discourage clean up and tweaking. I think this party's other remedies (probation, enforced BRD, non-consensus multi-option guidelines) will allow for the development of a good editorial culture while still stabilizing the pages. Joja  lozzo  03:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * If we assume going in that having a manual of style is useful, then it stands to reason that we want to improve it, and per WP:NOTLAW it needs to keep changing to reflect changing consensus. This is a huge admission of failure—this should only be contemplated if we are convinced that we can not do anything to have productive debate at these policy and guideline talk pages. I don't think this proposal can be taken seriously. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 21:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And if we don't think that having a MOS is useful, then we should of course get rid of it, not lock it up so we have a stale document that purports to mean something. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 22:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is MOS "as it now exists" that is the problem. It would be possible to have a Manual of Style which was as relatively calm as many of our Naming Conventions; we would need a different culture there first. But getting rid of MOS may be worth suggesting, as thinking outside the box. JCScaliger (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Beg pardon, I misunderstood, I somehow thought this was a suggestion to prohibit any edits whatosever, not merely full protection. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This would have the effect that whichever version happens to be at the time the case is closed will be effectively locked in. If this passes, the relevant pages need to have a big disclaimer on them stating that protection does not constitute endorsement of the current version, and encouraging people to be particularly wary of following the letter of the guideline too blindly. ― A. di M.​  23:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If there's just full protection, we can still discuss changes on the talk page and update the page as necessary. This should eliminate the kind of edit warring we've been seeing on some of these guideline pages, but it shouldn't be "locked in" or anything. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Since these are pages of wide interest, admins shall take not to impose sanctions on editors unaware of this ruling. All participants in this case can be assumed to know about them.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is the problem at WP:TITLE; it is also the problem throughout MOS. The response to any change in the text is exact reversion. JCScaliger (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A half measure. 1RR reduces churning but doesn't address someone editing against consensus. For policy and guidelines, whenever there is a reversion, we should have a discussion to check for consensus. 1RR doesn't encourage or enforce BRD (though it doesn't prevent it). I think policy and guidelines need better protection than this. Joja  lozzo  01:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This feels reasonable to me; I dont't think there is ever any good reason to go back and forth like this on these pages—there should be orderly discussion first when there is this kind of disagreement. To me, this kind of edit warring was the main problem in all the activity that led to this case. I was contemplating suggesting 0RR. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 21:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Since these are pages of wide interest, admins shall take not to impose sanctions on editors unaware of this ruling. All participants in this case can be assumed to know about them.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


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


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


 * I support this option (enforced BRD) since it will allow more normal editorial activity than the second option (1RR) with less administrative involvement than the first option (full protection). I would like to see this as a permanent, policy/MOS-wide approach but realize that is outside the bounds of arbcom. (with improved wording about encouraging vandalism and reversion :-) Joja  lozzo  02:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would not like to see this generalized; it genuinely does discourage tweaking. But so does the systematic practice of reversion now in place; and if it is strictly limited to exact reversions, tweaking will be possible even if there is a small group of editors who WP:OWN the page.


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


 * Comment by others
 * I think with 1RR/0RR this is redundant, as a practical matter. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 21:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer 2) above (i.e. 1RR rather than 0RR), as the latter could more easily lead to X-treme wikilawyering IMO. ― A. di M.​  23:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


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


 * This makes sense to me. It may encourage development of consensus to eliminate extreme options that all sides find obnoxious. I would amend it to specify "appropriately wide consensus" (village pump discussion, newsletter promotions, etc., depending on the issue) - more than the policy/MOS wonks who happen to be watching to the page. Joja  lozzo  02:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Tweaked. But as long as ArbCom includes the idea, wording is secondary. JCScaliger (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

No great swathes of edits
4)The practice of systematically editing or moving large numbers of articles in order to bring them into compliance with the Manual of Style has caused repeated controversies on Wikipedia, especially when objections to a particular series of edits have been ignored. If such a series of edits educes protest, it should cease.


 * Comment by Arbitrators


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


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


 * If you're writing an article, and want guidance, consult MOS by all means; that's what it's for. If you happen to be reading an article, and see something that needs fixing, either in your own view or according to MOS, fix it; that's the Wiki way. But personal campaigns for the Right Way are disruptive. JCScaliger (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe, just say “An editor should not edit more than n distinct articles in any x-hour period” or something. ― A. di M.​  23:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


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

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


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


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


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

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


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


 * Comment by others:
 * Comment by others:

Refactoring
Dicklyon and Noetica are forbidden from editing another user's post in any kind of discussion, unless the other editor consents to that particular change beforehand. Unquestionable cases of vandalism are excluded.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * The absence of a time limit is intentional. Had Noetica not arrogated to himself the authority to decide what B2C might say, this might well have been over at a much lower temperature. JCScaliger (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Comment by others:

Exemplary sanction
Noetica is banned from editing policy pages, guideline pages, and their talkpages, for six months.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I did not expect to propose exactly this when I began contributing to this case; but unless one of TDN is severely sanctioned, they will just keep on domineering. Noetica is the worst-behaved, and not now editing. These three have come to ArbCom's attention at least twice before; if no such measure is instituted, there will be other cases, with other trampled editors, until ArbCom does act.


 * Do it now, and avoid the rush. JCScaliger (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Comment by others:

Kwami advised
Kwamikagami is counselled to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Kwami did support the original advocacy of disambiguation whether it is needed or not; after the dispute became over the wording of Recognizability, he reverted twice, and protected twice, to his friend Noetica's version.


 * When he was reminded of this, he said he had no idea it was the same dispute, and handed over protection to Elen. If true, he has been careless in looking at the dispute, which flows from one to the other; but no greater sanction is warranted. JCScaliger (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Discussion

 * I may be a little dense here, but who specifically is the banned user? --Mike Cline (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you look at User talk:JCScaliger, he's been banned as a illegitimate alternative account of User:Pmanderson, used to circumvent his topic ban.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 15:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Worm, thanks I had just figured it out. The only question I have given the fact that JSCScaliger has been given an indefinite Block, not a Ban decision.  Does the same logic apply to a blocked user?  If a user is blocked (not banned) after participating in a discussion, do we still retroactively remove their contributions from the discussion?  Its just a point of clarification for me, no judgement whatever on the actions taken. Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see any investigation corresponding to this ban. Mangoe (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, the information has been removed because Pmanderson was topic banned from discussions on MOS topics, and is now currently blocked for 1 year for evading that topic ban. So whilst in normal circumstances, if a user is blocked, we don't retroactively remove contributions, Pmanderson was already banned on that topic... if that makes sense. I also believe there is precedent for this in the MickMacNee case. Hope that helps.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 15:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * All I see is that someone, out of the blue, blocked JCScaliger. Where was it determined that the two accounts are the same person? Mangoe (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, answering your previous question, the topic ban discussion on Pmanderson can be found here. As for where it was determined, I don't have that information - Arbitrator Elen of the Roads blocked both accounts,, specifically stating that you can contact her for more details and that the issue was highlighted by email.   WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 15:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Worm, thanks. Makes perfect sense. Confusion could have been avoided by making that a bit clearer in the template heading or a short paragraph within the template explaining the move.  The edit summary just didn't get the message across. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Will keep that in mind for the future!  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 15:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Mea culpa: Having hatted JCScalinger's statement, evidence and workshop proposals, and moved the latter here, I got called away before I had time to post a summary.
 * The Arbitration Committee were made aware of the use of Pmanderson using the JCScalinger account in order to circumvent their ban. Elen of the Roads performed the investigation and blocked the JCScalinger and Pmanderson accounts in her capacity as the admin who imposed the initial ban on JSCcalinger; this is not a block imposed by the Arbitration Committee.
 * In answer to Mike Cline's question about material from a blocked user, the answer is that it is not retroactively struck or moved. In this instance, the topic ban was in place long before the case was opened, and material from sock puppets of banned users is routinely removed from various areas of Wikipedia. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What is the policy for handling the banned user's comments in other parties' sections? Joja lozzo  20:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the extent of the comments and that the arbitrators are all aware of the sock puppetry, it makes little sense to strike or refactor them, and would probably make matters even more confusing. In any case, I have merely collapsed material or struck it, though with hindsight, the striking of comments on this talkpage probably served little purpose. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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


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


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


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

Congratulations, Born2cycle. You got the last word! As I composed my reply the page was closed and protected. Here is that reply:
 * Yes indeed. Let that whole case be examined closely. Similarly to what you have twice done here, you requested that the closing admin (Mike Cline) re-open the RM. You had completely ignored it while it was open, and extended, for more than two weeks. In an amazing concession, Mike Cline did re-open it for you. You posted more than once, including what I quote and analyse above. Admins who are themselves experts in assessing RMs weighed in and agreed with my view, and disagreed with yours. Undaunted, you later contested the result at length after the second closure – which confirmed the result of the first. Some of that tendentiousness is at the talkpage; a huge slab of it is at the closing admin's talkpage; and another typically oversize spin-off can be found at WP:AN, where it forms part of an even lengthier section that addresses your disruptive interactions with admins.
 * The central question is not what is "right" in the case; it is your absolute certainty that you are right, and that any disagreement must be dismissed. Let that be examined, by all means.
 * I have asked AGK to close this Workshop page. The time was already extended; and while everyone else managed to interrupt their lives to meet the new advertised deadline, you alone came in with an extended submission well outside the limit. Please stop, so that others can also. Let the case proceed as advertised.

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

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

N oetica Tea? 23:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have a supplementary announcement regarding scheduling, which is timed well to follow your comment about arbitrator deliberations and real-life :). Due to my real-life busyness, I regret I will not have time to publish a preliminary assessment of the dispute. However, I am happy to post the proposed decision to this page for review - in advance (by about two days) of the beginning of voting. I hope this is satisfactory, and please accept my apologies for the delay. If there are any questions in the interim, please contact me or another drafter. AGK  [•] 15:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Anthony has indicated that real-world concerns are consuming his time, so I'm soldiering on without him. I plan on posting part or all of the draft PD to the workshop at the beginning of next week, and posting to the decision page by the end of the week; the PD decision date in the casenav has been updated accordingly (although I'm hoping to beat it by a day or two.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 00:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
Clerks, feel free to delete this if inappropriate.


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

Is it acceptable to use arb cases as rationales for winning a content dispute? Noetica thinks that the policy should read Unless a discussion regarding a claim of "no consensus" is undertaken on the discussion page, an edit summary of "no consensus" or "not discussed" is not helpful, except possibly if the edit being reverted created a change in prescribed practice (as on policy and guideline pages), since such a change would need to have wide consensus to be valid. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how a "no consensus" edit summary of a revert is ever helpful on any kind of a page. I don't think anyone besides Noetica (and possibly Tony1 or Dicklyon) would say that it is, but that won't stop them from insisting on having it say that. This attitude of theirs lies at the heart of our dispute at WP:AT.   --Born2cycle (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I took care of the problem there by removing the "not helpful" concept that I accidentally took from Collect's "copy edit". Noetica's attempt to ameliorate was certainly awkward, but in fact I do think that an edit summary of simply "no consensus" can be helpful, especially on a policy page (and I see no evidence that what you quote is a fair representation of how he thinks it should read -- rather, it's an awkward attempt to reduce the problem of claiming that such a summary is "never helpful").  It means don't make that change to policy until you work out a consensus on the talk page first (it's hard to work that out in edit summaries, and esp. on a policy page it's a bad idea to try to do so).  Some problematic history of changing policy without consensus has been discussed already at consensus, titles, and verifiability, among other places.  It's simply not OK to make substantive changes to policy in the face of an objection without establishing consensus.  Just go work out a consensus change instead.   Since the discussion of this just heated up again, it's not clear why SarekOfVulcan objects to the under-discussion tag.  Dicklyon (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sarek:
 * You assume what you are not entitled to assume, as on earlier occasions. Note first that I am not concerned to "win a content dispute" at the policy page in question. If you attended to the actual and complete history of this matter (going back to late December, or earlier), rather than to WhatamIdoing's revisionist version of it, you might not make that mistake. This statement of yours is plain wrong:
 * "Noetica thinks that the policy should read Unless a discussion regarding a claim of 'no consensus' is undertaken on the discussion page, an edit summary of 'no consensus' or 'not discussed' is not helpful, except possibly if the edit being reverted created a change in prescribed practice (as on policy and guideline pages), since such a change would need to have wide consensus to be valid."

Born2cycle:
 * As happens quite often, your opinion is given in a distorted and prejudicial way. I have no time to debate over your account at the length you prefer; but it remains eminently debatable nevertheless.

Dicklyon:
 * I can see why you judged my attempt "awkward"; but note: I am not concerned to revert to any particular wording there, but to signal the status of the section honestly and accurately. Note the exact wording of the template I applied (my underlining):
 * "The following section's wording or inclusion in this policy or guideline is disputed or under discussion."
 * Anyone think that is inaccurate?
 * As for your recent edits to that policy page, and your comments above, of course I approve of them.

N oetica Tea? 00:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Dicklyon, whether there is consensus for a given edit to a policy change may certainly be questioned. But if one goes so far as reverting a change, then that is asserting either that the lack of consensus is well known, or at least the person reverting has reason to oppose the change. Therefore the revert can and should be accompanied with a clarification of which it is. If commentary on the talk page or elsewhere clearly shows consensus is in opposition, then point it out. If there is no such evidence, then at least explain why you oppose it so those reasons can be discussed. Either is helpful. But simply asserting "no consensus" is not helpful; at all. This again is central to what our dispute was about at WP:AT which is a subject of this Arbcom case. There, you, Noetica and Tony repeatedly reverted the Kotniski wording without either establishing that consensus opposed it (indeed the opposite was true), or explaining what your substantive objection to it was. That's not building consensus. That's not behaving in collegial manner at all. That's the problem, and you and Noetica obviously still don't get it. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you speaking theoretically, or is there a revert that I failed to explain? I'm pretty sure I explained my objection to your editing of policy in your favor during a dispute that it bears on.  Dicklyon (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not an explanation. That's a lame excuse typical of stonewalling or filibustering in favor of the status quo.  What matters is whether there is consensus support or opposition, or good substantive reason in support or opposition, to the edit in question, especially regarding an edit to policy; not whether the edit favors one side or another in some minor dispute.  Policy should reflect consensus and actual practice regardless of which side that favors in some minor dispute, don't you think?  --Born2cycle (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you shouldn't dismiss objections as "non-substantive" and then say no reason was given. Dicklyon (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * By substantive in the context of a revert, I mean the reason, objection, argument or whatever is related to the substance of the edit in question - independent of anything purely procedural like the change might favor one side or another in an ongoing dispute. After all, that just means not changing favors the other side.  Why is that a good thing?  It's only a good thing if the status quo is supported by consensus - which brings us back to having to look at it substantively. So, yeah, I do dismiss objections as "non-substantive" when their basis is purely procedural.  And so should you.  --Born2cycle (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Noetica, if Sarek is "plain wrong" about what you wanted the Consensus policy to say, then why exactly did you add those precise words to the policy page last month? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That's plain wrong, WhatamIdoing. I did not "add those precise words". Nor, contrary to Sarek's typically overreaching assertion, do I especially want that wording there. I think it's preferable to some other wordings, but that's beside the point. I simply reverted a change away from that wording by User:Collect (the instigator of the last two months of troubles over this wording, let us note).
 * Collect's edit summary:
 * "simplifying and, I trust, i improving [sic]"
 * My own edit summary, in reverting:
 * "Reverted an edit that changed the substance of the provision mentioned in earlier edits as now an issue for ArbCom; the change was (ironically in the context) not even discussed; ArbCom injunction needed? ♥"
 * Consider the additional irony that this is all about the need for high-value edit summaries. Then compare Collect's usual cryptic accounts of what's going on, your own abbreviated summaries that hardly ever reveal the content of your edit – and finally my own, in which I give fuller information than just about anyone else you will encounter on Wikipedia.
 * Think again. In particular, acknowledge and reflect on how editing at that policy page, among others, was cynically turned to the vengeful political purposes of a proven sockpuppet (JCScaliger). You were unaware of that when he provocatively made his edits there, right? Well, I had my suspicions (later confirmed!), and acted to maintain due process. And I put myself in considerable peril in the process, with no help from you. You can attempt to distort the history of these events as much as you like; but such distortion is itself disruptive, and in the end will do no one any good.
 * I hope that ArbCom will consider the WP:OWNERSHIP situation of the policy page WP:CONSENSUS, and also of WP:POLICY where you edit in a similar vein and with similarly insufficient consensus, discussion, or edit summaries.
 * N oetica Tea? 02:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at the diff. That's your username at the top, right?  And you're not claiming that your WP:LITTLEBROTHER did it, right?  And so you did actually put those words into the policy, right?  It is reasonable of the community to assume that when you take an action to add words into a policy, that you actually wanted those words to be there.  If you didn't actually want those words to be there, then you really shouldn't have clicked the "save page" button (and especially not repeatedly, with minor variations in the phrasing).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

As a (relatively) disinterested onlooker, I can't help thinking that this continuing argumentation, days after the arbitration case was closed, is both hilarious and deeply sad, and itself disruptive. I'm convinced that this unstoppable squabbling serves only to undermine your own theses, and I suspect that if I were an arbitrator here I would be inclined to block each of you for insisting on continuing with this. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I know I should not post here again, but I think my observation above, which did not point to any individual users, speaks for itself. Milkunderwood (talk) 04:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm more inclined to the "deeply sad", especially about Noetica's ongoing demand that nobody edit the policy for weeks or months merely because his sentence got mentioned in the ArbCom case. Noetica has repeatedly added a hidden comment warning editors that they "should not" edit the entire section until the ArbCom case is wrapped up.  Multiple requests for Noetica to identify any policy that supports this apparently made-up claim that policies mentioned in ArbCom cases need to be frozen in time for the duration of the case have been ignored.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me get this straight, Milkunderwood:
 * SarekOfVulcan (initiator of this ArbCom case, but bearing no risk or responsibility in it whatsoever) earlier offered flimsy evidence: I implied "that he was not a real person". This is absurd on the face of it, and I did even bother to counter it on the Evidence page or Workshop page.
 * Sarek now starts a conversation here (the present section), unbidden and unwelcome as far as I'm concerned.
 * Born2cycle chimes in with a set piece about me and a couple of others being disruptive and failing to get the point (great ironies there, to add to the collection).
 * WhatamIdoing grasps the opportunity to advance unfounded accusations against me, as she and sockpuppet JCSCaliger did at WP:ANI, when I sought help there to protect WP:CONSENSUS from JCScaliger. (No one else suspected what he was later found to be up to, or did anything about it.)
 * I comment on accusations made here.
 * You comment here, alleging that I am engaged in "continuing argumentation" that is "both hilarious and deeply sadly".
 * WhatamIdoing chips in, capitalising on what you have just "contributed".
 * I hope I have summed things up in a way you will find helpful. I stress once more: I did not start this conversation. But it might be conceded that I am entitled to correct what I see as distortions. I put it to you: such responses are no more disruptive than the response of a well-meaning "disinterested onlooker". Would you like to join the party, and be equally at risk from "disinterested" hints that there be blocks handed out to everyone in the vicinity? Hmm? Think first, and be honest! No reflex answer is sufficient, to such a question.
 * If you yourself are not in a situation like the one you remark about here, you have no right to make things harder for those who are.
 * If you have a concrete suggestion for me, about what to do when a talkpage section is started with the express purpose of putting me in a bad light at a crucial time, and others leap to the attack, I will listen. Otherwise, please hold your peace. Even to answer such irresponsible comments as yours can be seen as dangerous. Are you a help, or a hazard?
 * Best wishes, as always. ☺
 * N oetica Tea? 03:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Surely the sudden flurry of edits on the Consensus policy page (19 since the updated closure date of this Workshop) is of interest here. Neotarf (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. And if there's to be edit warring, surely it should more appropriately take place on the talk page rather than on the policy page itself. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That disagreement seems to have grown out of this arbitration, with many of the same arguments. Wouldn't it be better to have the discussion in one place, instead of spread out over several talk pages? And since the matter has now gone to the arbitration level, what is it doing on a talk page?  Of course, the scope of this arbitration case is not clear to everyone. Neotarf (talk) 06:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Now you folks at WP:CONSENSUS are getting a taste of the frustration I experienced for almost two months at WP:AT. The pattern is all too familiar:
 * Someone makes an edit on a policy page that NoeticaTonyDicklyon disagree with.
 * NoeticaTonyDicklyon reverts that edit.
 * NoeticaTonyDicklyon defends the revert on some procedural grounds (e.g, the wording is being discussed in an Arbcom case, or it favors one side in an ongoing dispute) but denies allegiance to the wording they are restoring, and refuses to engage in any substantive discussion about it.
 * Others revert NoeticaTonyDicklyon's revert, dispute tags are added, and there are edit wars and endless/pointless discussion about all of that.
 * I'm seeing this same pattern at WP:CONSENSUS (the subject of this section, where I'm not involved) as I saw back in December at WP:AT (a subject of this Arbcom case). The root cause is reverting on procedural grounds and refusal to discuss the edit/change in question on substantive grounds. It's a very subtle form of IDHT disruptive editing, and I call it  status quo stonewalling. These guys have turned it into an art form, to the detriment of Wikipedia. I don't see how achieving consensus through discussion is possible with editors who approach disagreements like this.  The only thing that finally ended it at WP:AT was Elen of the Roads stepping in.   --Born2cycle (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why I'm letting myself get dragged into this past-deadline continuation of the same old arguments, but to me the root cause lies in applying WP:BRD (which is only an essay, not policy) to policy or guideline pages to start with. It isn't the R everts that are the problem, but the Bold edits made without prior D iscussion and consensus on the talk page. I understand that many editors may disagree with my position. Milkunderwood (talk) 07:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Milkunderwood, do you have a specific example? Repeating something over and over does not make it true. Neotarf (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of editors who agree with Milkunderwood about bold edits to policy and guideline pages. They're permitted (see the fourth paragraph at Policies and guidelines), but there's a bit of a gap between what's likely to be best under normal circumstances and what's technically permitted.  An editor highly familiar with the given policy can often boldly improve a policy, but most edits, and most editors, are IMO better off taking a less bold approach.  Writing policy is harder than most of us think it is.  It's too easy to make a change that seems perfect for situation #1, which you were thinking about, but is a disaster for situation #2, which hadn't ever occurred to you.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Milkunderwood, just because the edit is made without any specific discussion does not mean it's bold. As long as the one making the change has good reason to believe in good faith that the change is consistent with consensus and practice, and especially if that's explained on the talk page (which is what I did with the restoration of the Kotniski wording at WP:AT in December), I don't see why that's a problem.  If someone does disagree, they can revert and have the discussion.  There should be nothing wrong with that; it happens all the time. What is a problem is when those reverting refuse to engage in substantive discussion about why they oppose the edit which they reverted and oppose.  That is the problem in both of these cases, and, again, I call it status quo stonewalling.   --Born2cycle (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Policies and guidelines are essentially different from articles. Articles are about specific topics, and tend to be of interest to small groups of editors with some knowledge of the subject. In general, edits to articles are good-faith additions of information, or corrections, all presumably based on reliable sources. This is not to say that strong feelings that can escalate into edit wars do not occur in articles, for instance whether Pablo Casals should more properly be titled under this Spanish form of his name which he nearly always used as a professional performer, or under his birth name Pau Casals as a number of Catalan nationalists would have it. Or there are situations where a single editor who appears to be intrigued by human sexuality makes controversial POV edits to a number of related articles, such as Nocturnal Penile Tumescence (supposedly preferably titled "Morning wood"), or Erection, etc, and automatically reverts all attempts by other editors to help clean these up. Or an editor who takes it upon himself to boldly apply his own interpretation of a guideline to retitle every glossary he can find throughout Wikipedia. I'm sure each of us can think of other examples.


 * Policies and guidelines (such as WP:MOS or WP:AT, or here, for instance, in response to Neotarf) in contrast are of direct consequence to nearly every editor at Wikipedia, and are usually well thought out, using highly specific language that has long been discussed over the years. Many of these continue to be contentious in some detail or another of wording. Many debates take place over the most innocuous-sounding changes. Disagree with me if you will, it still seems to me that boldly jumping in and editing these pages without prior discussion is simply an invitation for trouble and a great deal of unnecessary distress. I agree that some editors have developed this entire process into an "art form", as Born2cycle puts it, and I also agree with Greg L's earlier statement:
 * (re-edited): "... editors ... inserting clever, ambiguous, wholesome-sounding changes with little-to-no discussion and others suspected that the changes had hidden meaning or were “loaded” in some way." Greg L (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Milkunderwood (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Milkunderwood, I agree with you about everything you said regarding policy/guidelines being different from articles. There is and should be a higher hurdle. But it should still be reasonable. More importantly and relevantly, reverting on a claim that the higher hurdle was not cleared, and then refusing to engage in substantive discussion about that claim, is not conducive to finding or building consensus. In this case the ones reverting insisted on discussion, but everyone who discussed favored the change. It's not true that it took until Greg L's poll almost a month later to make clear what the two camps were driving at. It was clear immediately, and not just to me and Kotniski. I made the edit on Dec 21 and simultaneously explained it. Within a day or two, everyone, with one possible exception (SamBC's position on the change was unclear), who commented about the change substantively, favored the change I made. The comments they made were very similar to the ones made weeks later in Greg's poll. It's true that NoeticaDicklyonTony cluttered the discussion with a lot of non-substantive noise that made it difficult for others to discern what the dispute was about, even though I hid much of it, but, again, everyone who did actually look at the change I made and commented about it substantively, favored it. No one opposed it on substantive grounds... not a single person (Greg's poll revealed the same result). See Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles/Archive_34 where I made my initial statement simultaneous to the change, and then the comments from Kotniski, EdChem, Kai445, Powers, and PBS that follow. They had figured out what was going on, and explained why they favored the change I made, and that was all within 14 hours of my edit. The fact that NoeticaDicklyonTony could obfuscate the situation to the point where you, Greg and others seem to believe over two months later that the issues were not clear from the outset just reveals how insidious and effective status quo stonewalling can be. There is nothing that is clear today that was not immediately clear to anyone who seriously took a few minutes to examine the situation, as these editors did, back on December 21. As to the comment that "editors were inserting clever, ambiguous, wholesome-sounding changes with little-to-no discussion and others suspected that the changes had hidden meaning or were “loaded” in some way", I have no idea what that's talking about. For the month prior to Greg's poll, the only change (most of the time the page was locked) was my edit, which, again, was accompanied by the explanation and subsequent discussion I just cited (and in the evidence for this case).  --Born2cycle (talk) 02:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern. My point was to the generality, not to the specifics in this instance, other than as one of many examples. I apologize for having originally posted a part of Greg's statement addressing this specific situation that I did not necessarily agree with, and which you saw in your edit conflict. That was my fault. (Edit: I have now re-edited that quote to delete reference to this specific situation.) Milkunderwood (talk) 03:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. And I understand, and agree with, your concern about hasty changes to policy.  I'll be impressed if Arbcom sorts it all out.  --Born2cycle (talk) 03:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hatted an extended thread that appeared to be of little value. AGK  [•] 21:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Answer Jclemens
I'm not sure what the protocol is here, but I somehow missed this question from Jclemens and would like to answer it now. It was asked at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article_titles_and_capitalisation/Workshop.
 * Quotation box added. Please don't post comments in their raw form without making it clear that you are making a quotation. AGK  [•] 14:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Quotation box added. Please don't post comments in their raw form without making it clear that you are making a quotation. AGK  [•] 14:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The situation I'm talking about is where the person making the change has justified it on the talk page (in this particular case, simultaneous to making the change, exactly as BRD recommends - "Try to make the edit and its explanation simultaneous"), but those opposed to the change revert, and then don't engage in substantive discussion about their objection. What then? So, yes, the one making the change has the burden, but once that burden has been met, don't the reverters have some burden too? If not, then we pave the way for status quo stonewalling, which is what occurred at WP:AT, succeeding for over a month despite overwhelming consensus support for the change in question. I hope that answers your question, as it is central to the problem here, in my view. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not that the reasons for the revert were not clearly stated, just that you considered them "non-substantive". And you have to discount quite a few editors's objections before you can get to the "overwhelming consensus" that you claim.  If I recall correctly, there were about 9 objecting editors by the end, even if we started with only 3.  Dicklyon (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The only "objections" were procedural (i.e., non-substantive), based on the argument that changes shouldn't be made that affect an ongoing dispute. Never mind that the "dispute" in question was so minor as to be inconsequential (it was a discussion at WP:AT about one article's title and its recent unilateral move and revert), and that the policy wording "change" in question was actually restoration of longstanding language that was clearly removed inadvertently (or with so little conviction that none of those involved in the removal - a wording simplification effort - and the discussion about it bothered to weigh in about it even though they were notified about the revert of their removal). There were zero non-procedural objections from the outset, and zero objections of any kind in Greg's poll about the same language a few weeks later. AFAIK, no evidence of 9 objections was submitted in this case, nor even exists.  Did I miss something?  If there were 9 (or so) objections, why would Elen declare that a revert of the restoration of that wording would be seen as edit warring?   If there was that kind of objection to it, I would have backed off from the outset.    --Born2cycle (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

New evidence of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior by Dicklyon
I think new evidence of battleground behavior by Dicklyon is relevant to this case because I believe I was originally reverted by Dicklyon at WP:AT due to battleground behavior. WP:BATTLEGROUND says: In addition to avoiding battles in discussions, do not make changes to content or policies just to prove a point to someone with whom you disagree. I believe I was originally reverted at WP:AT by Dicklyon et al just for them "to prove a point to someone [me] with whom [they] disagree". That's difficult to prove, of course, but Dick's continued behavior shows a pattern. I believe he might not be aware of this. So, here's the new evidence. First, some background. There has been an ongoing RM discussion at Talk:Republic of China about moving it to Taiwan. The proposal was made on Feb 17. I contributed for the first time on March 4 as Support !vote #31. Before I contributed my !vote, I read the discussion, and noted that the vast majority of Support votes were based on WP:COMMONNAME, and that many of the oppose votes discounted the applicability of WP:COMMONNAME to this case (but, notably, not because they felt COMMONNAME applied equally to both names). I too based my !vote on COMMONNAME, and it was and remains my only contribution and comment to the discussion. In addition, I thought it was a case that might be of interest to some other editors who watch WP:AT, so I added a notice about it to WT:AT accordingly, characterizing it as a test case for COMMONNAME. I added that notice at 13:04, March 4, 2012. I had no intention of starting a discussion about this at WT:AT; it was just an FYI notice. But, to my surprise, within a few hours, at 16:36, Dicklyon did comment, taking issue with my characterization, arguing that it's not a good test case for common name since both names are common, and thus equally supportable by COMMONNAME. If someone else had made this point would he have responded the way he did? I don't think so, and I'm not the only one. thought something similar in that he wrote, "But don't let (lack of) evidence get in the way of your taking sides in a dispute that you by your own admission know nothing about, simply on the basis it seems, not for the first time in my experience, of who you find on the one or other side of it (if you know nothing, how are you so sure "both names are very common"?)". But, whatever. We discussed it back and forth, others explained why it was a common name issue, and I figured that was that. But today I noted Dicklyon also commented about me at the RM discussion. While he started with a general statement objecting "to those who claim it must be moved to satisfy WP:COMMONNAME", he continued with a direct attack on me: " the idea that the "most common" name has to be used has been pushed by one editor in particular (User:Born2cycle), often against a lot of pushback." Now, again, I was support !vote #31. Of the 30 who !voted prior to me, 22 mentioned "common" in a context meaning common name, and most of those explicitly referenced WP:COMMONNAME. Most of the !votes refer to common name. No way did I make this about common name. The community obviously sees it that way. Dicklyon is in a minority (perhaps of one) that disagrees, but what does any of this have to do with me? I don't know what he means by "often against a lot of pushback" (unless he's referring to pushback from him), but I do know saying it was entirely inappropriate in this context. I mean, what is the point of isolating me in a negative light in an ocean of editors essentially making the same argument before I did? Isn't this kind of non sequitur attack on another editor with whom he has a history of disagreement the epitome of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior? Isn't the revert that started all this back on Dec 21 another example of this that lead to over a month of disruption on that page? For what? So he could revert an edit with practically unanimous consensus support simply because I made it? Am I out of line here? I really think he has a battleground issue with me that he might not be aware of. Any suggestions on how I might get him to stop battling me and start collaborating? By the way, suggestions that involve discussing this with him on his talk page won't work because attempts to work things out with him in the past have resulted in him asking me to stay off his talk page. I know it's after the evidence and workshop deadlines, but can relevant evidence like this still be considered by Arbcom since it materialized during the case? --Born2cycle (talk) 06:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * We can take it into account, but I don't see how this is a compelling complaint. The point of BATTLEGROUND editing is that there has been a demonstrated, long-term pattern of un-collaborative editing. Have you demonstrated such a pattern, aside from in the instances shown in your post? AGK  [•] 14:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not sure when Dicklyon's vendetta against Born2cycle started, but I think it is pretty clear that some part of Dicklyon's activity in regards to article naming the last couple of months has focused on not letting Born2cycle "win". I think this post towards the end of the discussion on the wording of the recognizability criterion exemplifies it well, where he essentially admits that the only real reason he kept opposing the suggested wording was that it would set bad precedent to let Born2cycle "win". I said it then, and I will say it again, I think it is POINTy behavior to cause disruption to the community the way his opposition to that wording caused, when it is only done to not let a specific editor "win". As I said, I don't know how long this behavior has been going on, but I don't see why it should be allowed to keep going, when he clearly shows no signs of wanting to stop it. I think Born2cycle has shown to be a valuable (although tenacious) contributer to naming discussions and Wikipedia naming policy in general, if Dicklyon is going to oppose everything he supports, only for the reason he supports it, I think a lot of unnecessary disruption is going to be caused to the community.TheFreeloader (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if my behavior is a problem here, but tell me if so. B2C has a long history of pushing the minority view that the "most common" name is the only real naming considering, and trumps all.  See for example this 2008 pushback from Arthur Rubin where he tells Serge (B2C's name at the time), "It would be more impressive if SOMEONE agreed with you in this thread, Serge."  In his over 1100 edits at WT:AT, I'd estimate that about half of them contain the phrase "most common" (it appears 32 times from him in the thread that Arther Rubin was responding to in 2008, for example).  But there are other considerations, too, and I wanted that to be clear in the Taiwan/ROC argument where the proponents seemed to be focused only on COMMONNAME.  B2C drew my attention to it be his post on WT:AT making it a a "test case" for his baby.  As for the not wanting B2C to "win" to get a policy change that he initiated to support his side in an ongoing argument, I think that's legit, in terms of not tolerating outrageous behavior. Dicklyon (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is fair to call WP:COMMONNAME Born2cycle's "baby". I think most people who participate in requested move discussions will know that it (along with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) is probably the most cited principle in naming discussions. I am not sure that generally preferring, not just common names, but also the most common name is a minority view either. I think COMMONNAME is very often used that way in practice in naming RM discussions as it often shows to be a good way to decide finally on a title when all else seems to stack up equal (or if nothing else can be agreed on). But in any event, neither of these discussions were actually about whether WP:COMMONNAME means choosing the most common name. They were somewhat about COMMONNAME, but they were not about "the most common name". And if you are going to disagree with Born2cycle on everything which just is somewhat about COMMONNAME, then you can disagree with him on pretty much anything which has anything to do with article titling. And if you are going to oppose anything Born2cycle says which has the least to do with WP:COMMONNAME, under the justification that he must somehow be covertly "pushing" his minority opinion, then yes, I think your behavior is a problem. It implies a constant assumption of bad faith to the point of nearing personal harassment. And even if you think Born2cycle "deserves" treatment like this, I think it causes a lot of disruption to the community at large too, as we saw it in the recent discussion on the recognizability criterion.TheFreeloader (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have a somewhat contentious history to be sure, largely stemming from my pursuit to change the guidelines regarding U.S. city naming to be more consistent with WP:CRITERIA, so that we didn't have concise city names like Tallahassee redirecting to the name disambiguated with state (so that we only disambiguate with state when necessary for disambiguation, per WP:PRECISION). But, even there, my position was never about pushing the "minority" view.  At worst, it was about pushing a view shared by many, but not enough to be consensus.  The last time this was seriously pursued was over a year ago, and in that large RFC/discussion opinion was basically split on this point about 50/50.  See Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)/Archives/2011/January/Archives/2011/February.  I'm offended that Dicklyon accuses me of pushing the minority view, not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that if I did, but because I strive to do the opposite - discern what consensus opinion is and push that.  It's a gross mischaracterization to claim otherwise, not to mention it is an accusation that is utterly void of evidence, since it's not true.  But this is typical of what others characterize as a vendetta against me.  I too am not sure when it started, or why, but know it is not good for WP to allow it to continue. As to the relevance of Dicklyon's vendetta against me to this case... it's relevant because the vendetta is probably the only reason we had the conflict at WP:AT, and why it continued as long as it did.  In short, the problems caused by the inability and/or refusal of Dicklyon (and Noetica and Tony1 to some extent) to AGF regarding my actions, like my Dec 21 edit at WP:AT, is why we have WP:AGF, and why it's so important.  Their whole objection to my edit, why they reverted it, was based entirely and solely on questioning my motivations for making that edit, and had nothing at all to do with any substantive objection to the edit itself, which was proven repeatedly to have strong consensus support for the very reasons I explained in the comment I made simultaneously at WT:AT (and which, by the way, Dicklyon admitted to not reading long after he reverted my edit). The evidence I bring forward here from the last few days simply reinforces this theory - that Dicklyon looks to disagree with me because it's me.  It's quintessential WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. By the way, I'm not asking or even hoping for any kind of sanctions to be imposed on Dicklyon regarding this - only that it be recognized by a neutral party and he be apprised accordingly.  Because coming from me, and involved peers like Freeloader, it obviously means nothing to him.  Thank you.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * My reactions are about the directions that you keep trying to push the naming policy, not about you. Your idea that "most common" trumps every other naming consideration is definitely a minority view.  Dicklyon (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see a distinction of significance at AGF, BATTLEGROUND or anywhere else between reacting because of who it is, or reacting because of one's disagreement with who it is. You apparently have conceded to the latter - if so, thanks for that, as that's progress.   Now to persuade you that that is just as disruptive and contrary to the interests of collaboratively building an encyclopedia as is the former.  That's something I hope Arbcom can do, for all my efforts in that regard have utterly failed.  I need help. Mischaracterizing my view in extreme terms, as you did here for example, as "'most common' trumps every other naming consideration", is just more evidence of your vendetta against me because of the views you believe I hold.   --Born2cycle (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Funny thing... Right after posting the above, I went to Talk:Republic of China, and found this statement just made: "Neither of these policies is an argument to counter WP:COMMONNAME, which is definitive in this situation. Indeed, the WP:COMMONNAME argument is even stronger because the only real exception is when it causes ambiguity."  Those are not my words, but that does  reflect the broadly held view which I do "push".  Note that it allows for consideration for ambiguity, as I do (contrary to your claim that I contend it "trumps every other naming consideration"), except when PRIMARYTOPIC applies.  It's your view, that a more descriptive title should at least in some cases trump the most commonly used name, even when there are no ambiguity issues with that name on WP, which is the minority view.  But you being in the minority on this does not justify behavior on my part towards you that is contrary to AGF/BATTLEGROUND, etc., just as my advocating the consensus view (whether it's about recognizability, common name or anything else), which you believe to be the minority view, is not justification for you to engage in behavior contrary to AGF/BATTLEGROUND, etc. with respect to me.   --Born2cycle (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You both should be agreeing to a more friendly and productive mode of engagement. Otherwise, you'll place ArbCom in a difficult position.  Tony   (talk)   10:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've already explained what Dicklyon specifically did that I thought was unfriendly and disruptive.  I would appreciate the same kind of explanation if you believe I've behaved similarly, rather than a vague implication that I have.  Thanks.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Point of order
I believe that a point of order may be appropriate here. I am now utterly confused as to the respective roles of the 'Evidence' and 'Workshop' pages. I thought that I had had a clear enough notion to begin with, in that 'Evidence' is focussed on identifying the problem and 'Workshop' is where potential solutions are developed through analysis of the Evidence and further discussion. But it now seems that either I have misunderstood the rules, or there is some abuse of the system taking place. B2C was late in submitting his 'evidence', and now, though the workshop phase was supposedly over, it's still going on like a ferocious tie-breaker is being fought, with exactly more of the battleground mentality and verbosity that seem to underly the entire case. Should not the correct action be to lock this section down as being past its sell-by date and an unproductive and a waste of time to boot? -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 11:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My explanation for the original "late" evidence (the bulk of it was not late - just a few edits of it were late) was accepted - I don't understand why this is being raised again. I have no idea what the rules are with respect to bringing up relevant evidence from activity that occurs after the deadline, which is why I brought it up here on this talk page, and explained here why I thought it was not only relevant, but central to this case.   --Born2cycle (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * B2C, You of all people ought to be wishing the case was over, as it should have been closed yesterday. Arbcom cases are stressful to all those involved, and I believe it is better for the case to be over sooner rather than later. Instead, you are still charging around with offers of "new evidence" trying to point the finger at others. I admire your persistence and tenacity, but my take is that this is one of the key tenets why we are where we are today. Nothing seems to have changed with you; the arbcom case just seems to be yet another day of 'ordinary editing' where you persist in overwhelming "the opposition" and stonewalling them with your continuous refusal to listen. Bystanders would be glad not to be a part of this case. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 03:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you think I'm stonewalling or refusing to hear? I'm hoping for an understanding and recognition of what happened and why that would help prevent this kind of situation in the future, for the betterment of all of WP. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I take it upon good faith that you do not understand my point, but I will refrain from repeating myself ad nauseum. It's great that you are prepared to elaborate and clarify, but it seem that you always go beyond that point and instead indulge in repeating the same old arguments and opinions when faced with opposition to your viewpoint, as if repetition will turn your opinions into facts, or as if people will understand what point you are trying to make by shouting louder. This is patently untrue -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 03:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't shout louder. But if my point is not understood (and I mean not understood - agreeing to disagree is fine - what drives me to explain further is disagreement based on obvious or apparent misunderstanding), then I do try to explain it a different way, usually by responding to what others are saying, answering/asking questions, etc.  Isn't that normal rational discourse?  Isn't that how we are supposed to find common ground and build consensus? But why talk in such general terms?  In this particular case I made an edit and explained it.  It was reverted, repeatedly, without those reverting engaging in substantive discussion about it. That stonewalling by them went on for over a month.   Why is that acceptable?  Why are we not talking about that?  --Born2cycle (talk) 04:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The operative words were "as if". That's how it appears to observers. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 11:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

This is the kind of "response" that drives me nuts. As if? Which of my assertions are not true? Do you not agree with any of this? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I made an edit accompanied by an explanation restoring what's known as the Kotniski wording in recognizability.
 * Tony, Dicklyon and Noetica opposed, supported reverting, and reverted that edit, but did not address my explanation, nor provide any for their opposition, except essentially basing all of their opposition and justifying their reverting on the fact that I made the edit.
 * Other editors who actually addressed the edit favored it, unanimously and repeatedly.
 * The "conflict" lasted for over a month and only ended when Elen unlocked the page specifically to allow the edit, and threatened anyone who reverted it with a block.


 * Closed a thread that was not of significant value to this case. AGK  [•] 22:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm so confused. If new evidence of ongoing behavior of the kind that caused the problems in this case in the first place, and discussion about that, is not "of significant value to this case", what are we doing here?  --Born2cycle (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say the issue is not of value to the case. I am saying that the discussion between you and Ohconfucius was a distraction from the case, and therefore served no value. For my part, by the time a dispute comes to arbitration I'm not very interested in what the parties have to say to one another. AGK  [•] 12:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to make an observation; I wasn't looking for a discussion with B2C on the issue, and was annoyed that he kept on keeping on. --  Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 15:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem in a nutshell
Here is the issue I would like to see Arbcom address. There is evidence submitted for all of this:


 * I made a relatively simple edit restoring the so-called Kotniski wording on the recognizability wording of WP:AT on Dec 21.
 * I had good reason to believe this was consistent with consensus - and I explained all this on the talk page simultaneous to making the edit
 * Despite all my efforts, the edit was reverted, but those reverting gave no reason to revert other than because I made the edit. Dicklyon even admitted to not reading the explanation prior to reverting.
 * I and others tried to revert the reverts since the reverters provided no substantive reason to revert. But they reverted us again.
 * Everyone else who chimed in supported the edit and explained why.
 * Eventually the page was locked at the version without the Kotniski wording
 * The "discussion" went on for over a month, the entire time the antagonists never participating substantively.
 * Eventually there was a poll that showed, again, even more clearly than before, unanimous community support in favor of the Kotniski wording
 * Finally, over a month later, under threat of block by Elen, the edit was made and no longer reverted

It would be one thing if that month of churn had some substantive discussion about the merits of the edit, and we had worked it out. But that wasn't the case at all. Those reverting -- Dicklyon, Tony1, and Noetica -- never submitted alternative wording, nor presented an argument against the Kotniski wording. It was all smoke and mirrors, for over a month. Kotniski became so frustrated with their behavior that he quit WP.

I too find this to be intolerable. If that wasn't disruption, nothing is. This is exactly the kind of baloney that is driving editors away.

Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Since we’re talking “nutshells,” here’s my 2¢ on this: Here in my city, some off-duty cop was driving drunk, hit someone, and then fled the scene. He was fired by the police. And he sued for back wages and damages, claiming that job stress led to his alcoholism, the city ignored his alcoholism, did nothing to treat him, alcoholism is a disability, the city must accommodate him with his disability, (yadda-yadda, political correctness ad nauseam, etcetera). Some sort of “Feel good about yourself”  state committee backed him in his pursuit of scads of money. After a public outcry, the city council nixed the proposed settlement. During the debate over this (a unanimous decision), a city councilman said this:


 * Sometimes when you are losing, you have to know when to fold and walk away from the table. But on matters of principle, you fight until Hell freezes over… and then you fight on the ice.
 * Dicklyon simply wanted his way and I am convinced he knew full well that he was simply playing a game of attrition whereby protracted intransigence was driving others away (or making them cave in exasperation) and if he could only overcome one last obstacle (Born2cycle), Dicklyon would finally get his way.


 * Born2cycle on the other hand, was upholding the principle of “consensus” (it is, after all, enshrined at WP:Five pillars) and was willing to fight on the ice after Hell froze over. It takes two however, to fight on the ice and Dicklyon was clearly the other one—his “slice things differently” poll being a prime example. Born2cycle also didn’t seem to understand that *pithy* posts on Wikipedia are generally more effective than lengthy and detailed ones.


 * Were it me, I’d merely ask the combatants if they’ve learned a lesson from any of this. Accept apologies, shoot any bastard who wants to keep mixing it up, and put an end to this. Greg L (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The larger problem is that the idea of attrition against consensus establishment at the MOS pages (recognizing that TITLE isn't MOS but the editor overlap is undeniable) is what started date delinking, and appears to exist through this day. (And to prevent echos of my previous comments on this, there are *so* many people involved, on both sides, in a manner that otherwise barely tickles any behavioral response issues that this is not to call out any specific person or group, but to recognize this has become a norm on certain MOS aspects).  This is not to call what B2C and Dicklyon did as unactionable, but everyone that works on pages like MOS that have wide impact need to recognize that they aren't scripture and holding one's own (whether through attrition or demanding some type of consensus to be set) is harmful in the long run for something that is meant to be a guide.  In other words, it is not the decision specifically about TITLE that should be considered the core of this case, but how such behavior in the long term is harmful to the MOS in general even if it is impossible to point specific problems with specific people, and how editors can figure out how to resolve it. --M ASEM  (t) 01:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Awwwwe… clever you, Masem. I think you can do better than suggest that “date delinking” is responsible for all modern instances on en.Wikipedia MOS where crops wither, midwives weep, and pestilence and plague spreads across the land. Try again. As can be seen at RfCs such as this Date Linking RfC, a herculean effort was made to discern consensus and maximum effort expended to gain widespread input from the community. A bit of advise, MASEM: It’s been nearly four years since “date delinking”; if you try not to dredge up ancient and exceedingly tangential business and shoehorn it into an entirely different situation, your words might carry additional weight. Greg L (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me be clear: Date delinking wasn't the start of the problems, but it was an epitome of the problems that have only been intensifying on MOS related pages. I'm not considering the actual aspects of date delinking, only the behaviors that lead to the case. It's important to identity date delinking as related to this if only to avoid having to re-iterate the typical atmosphere of the MOS talk pages. It is not that the same people from date delinking are central to this case here, only that the same general trends in attitudes on both (or multiple) sides of the arguments continue to rear their heads at MOS-related pages. Arbcom at Date Delinking, however, made no attempt to correct across all of MOS, only on the issue of DD; the decisions suggested here to date are at least indicative of the larger problem of MOS beyond just TITLE.  --M ASEM  (t) 05:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. Many similarities. Today, as back then, the combatants exhaled carbon dioxide. Greg L (talk) 06:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)