Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: AlexandrDmitri (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: David Fuchs (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Any editor is entitled to add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. Create your own section and do not edit another editor's section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs. It is more effective to make succinct, detailed submissions, and submissions of longer than 500 words are usually not as helpful (and may also be removed at any time). Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerk without warning. Focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and on diffs which show the nature of the dispute.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent; see simple diff and link guide.

General discussion of the case will not be accepted on this page, and belongs on the talk page. The Arbitration Committee expects that all rebuttals of other evidence submissions will be included in your own section and will explain how the evidence is incorrect. Please do not refactor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, only an Arbitrator or Clerk may move it.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by Mike Cline

Current word length: 390; diff count: 0.

This is a pure and simple failure of WP policy

I routinely work on Requested Moves and have been extensively involved with WP:Title for several years (mostly monitoring the discussion but stepping in occassionaly on policy improvement discussions). I recently wrote this Holistic View of WP titles and this My ideal titling policy. Policy ought to be simple to apply and interpret, but over the last few years we've created a policy page that is nothing more than a bunch of conflicting Babel that is poorly interpreted, selectively interpreted, and under constant threat of change when one editor or another needs a bit of policy wording to support their pet ideas. So my first assertion is very clear, our titling policy is dysfunctional. My second assertion here, is that any bad behavior on the part of editors surrounding our titling policy is a direct result of the policy wording and its application. If any answer is the right answer and no answer is wrong and that can be supported by policy, then editors will eventually behave badly when they are trying to defend their little view of the world based on policy. Its complicated by the fact that 6 or 7 editors can agree on something over the objections of 4 or 5 others and claim Community Consensus for a community of 136,000 editors. Our titling policy has put our editors in impossible positions. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My solution recommendation

The solution to this is simple but will take some work. We can't fix the dysfunctional policy overnight. But we can stem the bleeding. I strongly favor protecting the policy page from any edits for 1 year. I am pretty confident that if WP:Titles did not change one word for the next 365 days, WP would go on, and all the energy devoted to essentially meaningless policy debate, could be diverted to building the encyclopedia. I would also conduct an RFC that might run for many months in a very structured way to completely examine and reformulate our titling policy so that titles can be decided simply and with a holistic view. We will never be able to grow this encyclopedia from 3.9M articles to ~5-10M articles over the next decade if we don't fix the Babel we now call our titling policy. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One day, a disciple asked Confucius: “If a king were to entrust you with a territory which you could govern according to your ideas, what would you do first?” Confucius replied: “My first task would certainly be to rectify the names.” The puzzled disciple asked: “Rectify the names?…Is this a joke?” Confucius replied: “If the names are not correct, if they do not match realities, language has no object. If language is without an object, action becomes impossible - and therefore all human affairs disintegrate and their management becomes pointless and impossible. Hence, the very first task of a true statesman is to rectify the names.”

— The Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British Official Use

Our first task is to rectify the policy. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by JCScaliger

Current word length: 492; diff count: 52.

Evidence presented by banned user.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

A series of moves and move requests

Article titles


MOSCAPS

WP:Consensus

SarekOfVulcan's evidence

It isn't that hard if you read the page itself from top to bottom. There was only one episode of undoing other people's edits, and it is fully documented in the recriminations.

Evidence presented by SMcCandlish

Current word length: 44; diff count: 0. I've deleted mine, as I believe it will cloud the debate more than help the case. That, and process is too processy here; I have better things to do that try to convert 7 years of evidence into diffs. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 15:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Jojalozzo

Current word length: 488; diff count: 15.

Policy and MOS harmed by Bold

Three related problems I have experienced that might be relevant for this case are

  1. non-trivial changes to policy and the MOS made without proper consensus development,
  2. modification of policy/MOS by those involved in disputes they consider flawed by unclear, conflicting or incorrect wording of policy/MOS and
  3. thrashing in policy/MOS pages where disputed content is modified and reverted so frequently that the policy or guidelines is unusable.

Evidence can be found in the last two months' history at WP:TITLE and WP:MOSCAPS. A large proportion of the activity in that period has been disputed and should not have occurred (including contributions by me at MOSCAPS). I expect others are compiling lists of diffs so I will not duplicate their efforts but let me know if you need me to provide them.

To those whose main contributions are content, a general understanding of policy and style guidelines is sufficient but for those whose efforts emphasize correcting the results of misunderstandings and ignorance of policy/MOS, stability in those areas is critical and bold changes can quickly escalate into edit wars, time suck, and mangled policy and MOS content. Jojalozzo 17:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was not involved in the events at Title but can present some diffs for what I think illustrate BRD failures and substantial changes made with little or no consensus at MOSCAPS:

  • 12/6 04:27, Intro changed to X after discussion on the talk page: [27]
  • 1/6 11:54, X is modified [introduces grammar error]: [28]
  • 1/7 00:13, Bold edit A made to intro and "under discussion" template added: [29],
    • 1/7 - 1/23, Significant talk page discussion ensues on talk page led by A's author [30]
    • 1/8 - 1/17, Simultaneous c/e sweeps of article body [31]. This is the subject of simultaneous talk page discussions: [32], [33], [34], [35],.
    • 1/16 - 1/21, Talk page discussion (#1) of lead sentence: [36]
    • 1/19 - 1/20, Another talk page discussion (#2) of intro: [37]
  • 1/19 13:59, Lead sentence of A removed (per "discussion", I believe referring to #1, started 3 days earlier): [38]
  • 1/19 15:40, Lead sentence of A replaced by non-author (me) (as "under discussion"): [39]
  • 1/19 16:39, Bold edit B made, replacing intro with a short sentence (per "discussion", I believe referring to #2, started 3 hours earlier): [40],
  • 1/19 21:12, A restored by A's author (B characterized as "non-consensual and contentious"): [41],
  • 1/19 23:16, B restored by non-author (disputes consensus claim, requests discussion): [42],
  • 1/19 23:42, A restored by A's author (asserts A support from "long, patient discussion" and B a product of "negligible discussion"): [43],
  • 1/20 01:01, B restored by non-author (B supported by "several well-reasoned arguments"): [44],
  • 1/20 6:38, A restored by non-author (asserts B is "undiscussed edit of long-standing guidance"): [45]
  • 1/21 19:26, Bold edit C, lead completely deleted by B's author ("remove contested text altogether""): [46],
  • 1/21 20:30, A restored by A's author (asserts A is "nearest to consensual") : [47],
    • 1/23 - 1/25 Another talk page discussion of intro: [48]
  • 1/26 16:10, Intro reverted to version X by X's author ("so we can talk about ... different directions of changes": [49]

Jojalozzo 06:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by SarekOfVulcan

Current word length: 508; diff count: 11.

Born2cycle edits tendentiously

Born2cycle has repeatedly claimed (most recently here) that WP:BRD stated that the person reverting was required to provide an explanation, when it actually says that if you are bold and your change is reverted, you are required to start the discussion if you still think your edit would be an improvement to the encyclopedia. I pointed this out to him here, to which his reply was "What's not fine is reverting with edit summary "discuss first" (or something similar)" -- showing an extreme case of WP:IDHT. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

B2C has pointed out on my talk that he actually said "(presuming the bold editor seeks discussion/explanation of the edit and revert)" in the diff I quote above, which makes my claim misleading. However, the sheer number of words that he throws at discussions makes it easy to miss nuances like this, which may be another indication of tendentious editing. It's hard to tell when he's making different arguments than he made last time... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On January 24, Elen of the Roads protected WP:AT at the current version and told B2C on her talkpage that Born2cycle, that means that more people than you need to speak of their own volition, so you need to temper your immediate desire to respond at length to anyone who says anything different to you. I think you've said your piece sufficiently for the moment. 4 hours later, B2C responded there with a 14K, 2-and-a-half page demand that Elen immediately implement the consensus that he saw.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WT:AT

The history of WT:AT between 12/20 and 1/30 -- 1100 edits -- shows why I brought this to Arbcom. How is anyone supposed to track all that? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noetica edits tendentiously

Noetica claimed on ANI that there was an urgent need to "protect [Wikipedia:Consensus] to prevent abuse of it for pointy polemical purposes in current action at ArbCom", when he is actually asking for his version to be protected. (He also added a note claiming that it shouldn't be edited because it had been mentioned in this case (by another editor).) When I challenged his claim, pointing out that he was engaging in the behavior he had been accused of here, he stated that it was "an incident that threatens the stability of policy" and that I "must understand the distress and disruption these things can cause in real people's real lives", implying that either I wasn't a real person or didn't have a real life. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon polling

In late January, there was a poll at Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 35#Once and for all: Poll to establish the consensus ending with a 16-0 opinion in favor of a particular version of "recognizablity" wording. On February 5th, Dicklyon opened a new poll on the wording, claiming that a 16-0 poll provided "insufficient information about what people really intend" and relegating the unanimous consensus from a few days before to an "Other" choice.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, after JCScaliger was discovered to be a sock of topic-banned PMAnderson, Dicklyon hatted JCS's discussion under the heading "Noise by abusive sock puppet JCScaliger of banned user PMAnderson".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And hatted some more here, half an hour after I commented on it above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Greg L

Current word length: 482; diff count: 0.

Collaborative writing environment undermined by WP:OWN and walls of text

The problem was due to this mix:

  • experienced editors who specialize in this area digging in their heels to get their way,
  • an editor (B2C) who recognized that there was no consensus for driving that direction,
  • B2C creating walls of impenetrable text that made it difficult for anyone to parse his message point,
  • personal enmity building between Dicklyon and B2C (B2C created a dirt‑file on Dicklyon and waved it in his face),
  • still more walls of text being generated by a small cabal of combatants, and
  • → too few outside editors willing to step into the saloon while chairs are flying out the door. ←

The result was breakdown of the collaborative writing environment via…

Leading to…

  • WP:DGAF by outsiders,
  • made it impossible to discern the community consensus,
  • deprived the combatants the pressure-relief valve of moderate outside voices,
  • and resulted in editwarring via edits to WP:Article titles and tit-for-tat reversions.

There is no way to provide links that conveniently demonstrate WP:Tendentious editing and WP:TLDR other than to give a single link to the totality. This 'perma‑link to Wikipedia Talk:Article titles shows the venue shortly after WP:AT was locked down and the poll closed. The totality speaks for itself.

This link of ≤January 2012 / 500 edits of WP:AT shows the edits and reversions to the guideline page when its associated talk page was no longer helping to establish what the community consensus truly was. The link shows who was doing what sort of editing and the edit summaries they left for others.

My enumeration of how many talk-page posts various editors created at one point is here. That is merely the number of posts, not total word count. Nor does it speak to how many posts were primarily personal attacks or were evasive and didn’t speak to the nugget of the disagreement.

Notwithstanding that B2C adds excessive words to talk pages, the poll results show he correctly assessed that a few other editors—who behaved as if they considered themselves experts in the venue—were advocating against consensus. Unfortunately, the manner in which B2C made his point put off not only the opposing camp, but also drove off others. So, while I agree with SarekOfVulcan’s point (responding to this version, in the event it changes), I consider it half the full story; it takes two parties or camps to have editwars and the opposing camp shares responsibility because of its stonewalling and insistence on having its way.

As often happens in ArbCom actions like this, editors argue that the solution is to give them what they want insofar as the atomic-level details of the dispute and all will be well. Differences of opinion happen on Wikipedia—all the time. I submit that the challenge for ArbCom is to find out who was responsible for turning the saloon into a battleground that no one else wanted to enter. Greg L (talk) 04:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Ohconfucius

Current word length: 241; diff count: 4.

I was following at a distance the personal animosity that developed as a result of confrontation at WT:AT and elsewhere, I was unimpressed by the "dirt file" compiled by B2C in his own userspace on a fellow editor and how he used it in a threatening manner. I thus nominated it for deletion. At the MfD, B2C initially objects that I did not engage him on it; he also appears to state, falsely, that he wasn't notified, and creates a wall of text firstly stating how he was not in breach of any policy. Later on, he acknowledges that it was unwise and then blanks the page, allowing for its deletion. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • @ Sarek: And what, pray, is wrong with that? It happened above also; there is no rule that it can only be done by an Arbcom clerk. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ Born2cycle: It's irrational to think I was threatened when the obvious target of the threat was Dicklyon. Standard procedure is to alert the user of one's concerns using {{Uw-userpage}} template; although some regular editors prefer not to be templated. So I posted a concise descriptive message in accordance with the recommendation to inform of the inappropriateness of this content. I was by that stage completely familiar with B2C's verbose style and argumentativeness, so I thought that initiating a discussion without a corresponding MfD would allow such uncollegiate content to remain for that much longer. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Mangoe

Current word length: 170; diff count: 2.


Edit war at WP:CONSENSUS

The struggle over these issues has moved to WP:CONSENSUS, beginning with these two edits by JCScaliger. We then see a tug-of-war between JCScaliger, Neotica, and Dicklyon, with other contributions from a few other users not presently named as parties to this case. The focal change is this one in which the requirement to achieve consensus before making big changes to policies/guidelines is removed. This is relevant to the current case given that issue, to a very large degree, revolves around taking the MOS as a guideline and gaming it. Mangoe (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment on Eric Haugen's evidence

The hyphens and dashes discussion is not in my opinion a positive precedent, given that it was set up by having ARBCOM step in and force everyone to the table after a widespread and lengthy edit war. Mangoe (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What concerns me is that it may prove necessary, regularly, for ARBCOM to intervene that there might be reasonable discussion. It would be better if the prerequisite edit war were made superfluous to the process. Mangoe (talk) 05:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by ErikHaugen

Current word length: 66; diff count: 0.

Completely halting all edits to the MOS is not necessary for productive debate to occur

Evidence presented by Dicklyon

Current word length: 83; diff count: 0.

Given the uncertain scope of this case, and given that so much of the historic and current turmoil at both MOS:CAPS and WP:TITLE (and at WP:CONSENSUS that Mangoe has added above) were fueled by MOS-banned editor Pmanderson (most recently through his sock JCScaliger), and given that PMA/JCS is now blocked, I don't see what I can sensibly present as evidence. If the arbs will clarify the scope of the case, and give me a few days, I will present evidence. Dicklyon (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Neotarf

Current word length: 254; diff count: 0.

It seems like much disruption has been caused by a few people, and that most editors are not willing to deal with disruptive users under the current system because it is a big nuisance that sucks energy away from editing, not to mention peoples' personal lives. Under the current system, the same individual comes back again and again and again, after taking the pledge and promising to turn over a new leaf. Each time Wikipedia's answer to the miscreant is "Be civil, and this time we 'really' mean it." In the meantime, civil editors have to deal with repeated abusive behavior and may even face unfounded formal and public accusations, again and again.

I was disheartened to see that this case was immediately turned into a personal attack on one editor. The attack is no longer displayed prominently, as it was written by a prohibited sock, but many saw the accusations. I know I did. The editor in question, Noetica, has elsewhere requested extra space to answer the attacks, but so far, no accommodation has been offered. I have disagreed publicly with Noetica before, but I would like to know what he might have to say. If he still wishes to make a statement, and needs more space to do so, I would like to offer whatever remains of my own word allotment, if this is permitted. I can shorten my statement considerably if needed and repost whatever he wishes, in keeping with the requirement not to edit anyone else's section. Neotarf (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Born2cycle

Born2cycle has added some rather uncomplimentary and prejudicial remarks about me to the end of his statement. It's hard to see what legitimate purpose they serve. I'm not sure what his objection is — according to my reading of the rules, any editor is allowed to add evidence.

I am almost completely uninvolved in the current dispute, but recently I have taken an interest in titles. In an attempt to understand the issues, I have read quite a few threads involving move requests. Posted for User:Neotarf by clerk --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Born2cycle

Current word length: 448; diff count: 51.

Original change

Simultaneous discussion per BRD.

Change reverted but not discussed by opposers

Within minutes change was reverted (Tony1, then Dicklyon, Noetica), but reverts were not explained in section I had started, so Kotniski and I unreverted them. They didn't have reasonable basis to revert, but reverted anyway.

Consensus support for my edit was established within hours

All editors that made substantive comments favored Kotniski version. All made and clearly establishing consensus within 24 hours of 12-21 change. [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81].

Tony, Dicklyon, Noetica engage in disruptive editing

Their disruptive refusal to get the point that their belief that titles should convey to a reader unfamiliar with the topic what the article is about is non-consensus is reflected in above reverts and non-substantive discussion, but also in page moves and WP:RM discussions.

Good editor leaves due to their disruption

Responses

SarekOfVulcan

I made good faith efforts to explain and re-explain my position often in posts that I admit are too long. When this problem was brought to my attention, I addressed it with this pledge. I believe my record shows I'm holding to it.

Ohconfucius

I created the alleged "dirt file" mostly in hopes that starting it would be enough to revolve the dispute. Unfortunately telling Dicklyon about it was interpreted by Ohconfucius as a threat (I meant Ohconfucius interpreted it as a threat to Dicklyon, not as a threat to Ohconfucius. Dicklyon, BTW, did not interpret it as a threat, nor even as dirt [93]).
Ohconfucius chose to file the MfD without discussing it with me first, contrary to guidance at Wikipedia:Mfd#Before_nominating_a_page_for_deletion. I never said he didn't notify me on my talk page after filing the MfD - I questioned why he didn't talk to me before filing the MfD. I stated nothing falsely as he asserts.
The "wall of text" explained why I didn't understand why others thought I was in breach of policy; this reasoning was understood by uninvolved editor Sphilbrick[94]. Why not by Ohconfucius?

Neotarf

Involvement here and statements made don't seem consistent with someone who started editing 3 months ago.

Evidence presented by Noetica

Noetica's response to Born2cycle's late submission

Born2cycle engages in and supports disruptive editing, and accuses deceptively

  • Born2cycle erroneously censures two from Noetica's career total of just thirteen article moves:
    • A reversal of someone's inept move during an RM (later duly closed, not "reverted").
    • A move preparing an RM that Noetica then promptly initiated, with full explanation.
  • Born2cycle's account of WP:AT is deceptive. The simplification of recognisability had been openly discussed by five, not three or four editors, in the first discussion that Kotniski's complicated version had ever received. In August Born2cycle himself edited the simplified provision of May 2011: [95], but changed it again in December to win a new argument. (Find "Crime Patrol" in the version of WT:AT that Greg links, in which PMAnderson and his sock JCScaliger edit in tandem on the same page – JCScaliger during PMAnderson's week-long block from 24 December.)
  • Involved editor Kotniski has indeed withdrawn: after Noetica queried his and Born2cycle's unjustified attacks on admin Kwamikagami. (Contributor statistics: Kotniski is most prolific at WP:AT, PMAnderson second, and Born2cycle fifth. Ownership issues?)
  • Born2cycle condones PMAnderson's sockpuppetry – used to circumvent blocks and topic bans, used against those he opposes, used even here (pages linked in evidence have been tactically and provocatively edited by sockpuppet JCScaliger with this case in mind). Born2cycle sees no problem:

"But it seems to me that we should block editors only for engaging in behavior that is actually problematic, and even then only when the blocking is the only reasonable method to solve the problem in question. Is that the case here?"

  • Having failed to convince people on the RM talkpage, Born2cycle nevertheless edited the provisions for non-admin closures to suit himself: [96]. (Reverted as against consensus: [97].)
  • Born2cycle invokes or threatens admin intervention needlessly. Here at Noetica's talkpage for example, where Noetica (under attack from PMAnderson and Born2cycle, in a WP:ANI action concerning Born2cycle that Noetica had not wanted) was advising an editor. And later there: "This is your final warning. Unless you revert yourself within five minutes of me saving this comment, I will explain all this in an AN/I ...". (On 30 December Noetica withdrew from editing at WT:AT because that atmosphere was entrenched.)
  • Noetica, the limit on submissions is 500 words, and for a number of reasons we are not allowing the usual leniency on this specification. If you want to re-jig your evidence to include the last point (which I chopped off to take the submission to within the limit), then contact a clerk with a new submission, but we don't have the time to be playing ping-pong; if your evidence isn't within the limit, then it won't be accepted. A dispute about a relatively simple issue doesn't need more than 500 words per user, and I am not as inclined as many of my colleagues to read through excessively lengthy submissions. AGK [•] 00:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article_titles_and_capitalisation/Evidence&oldid=1082712698"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy