Case Opened on 14:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Case Closed on 22:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 21:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 03:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

• SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Born2cycle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JCScaliger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Noetica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tony1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Amatulic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Greg L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kotniski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mike Cline (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• GTBacchus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Blueboar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kauffner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vegaswikian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• ErikHaugen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• SMcCandlish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jojalozzo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• David Levy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

There has been long-term disruptive editing on the MOS and article naming pages. As far as I can tell, no single RFC/U or edit warring block is going to solve the problem, so I'm bringing it to Arbcom in an attempt to break the back of the problem and make working in this area of the encyclopedia less unpleasant. For examples, see the recent history of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters and Wikipedia talk:Article titles. There have been huge amounts of discussion spent on these topics, as well as related arb cases like WP:RFAR/DDL, so I'm not providing specific diffs of previous dispute resolution attempts above.

Response to AGK

Actually, I urge you not to put a temporary injunction in place, because I suspect part of the case will be figuring out its actual scope, and putting an injunction in place that doesn't cover the complete scope may lead to wikilawyering and bad feelings, instead of solving the problem at hand.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment on party list

I was pretty sure my list was too short, but I figured further discussion here would identify other people who needed to be added. From mostly-outside, I saw there was a godawful mess -- I didn't dive far enough into it to figure out who was "the problem", when there were some current examples of disputes to start with. (To be clear, I did figure GregL would get added at some point, because of his extensive participation in MOS/titling issues.) Remember, "involved party" does not mean "potential recipient of sanctions", it just means "involved in the dispute under discussion". I never intended this to only deal with the two cases I mentioned as examples, I figured they were good examples of the larger problem.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 08:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Until some articles on my watchlist (including two I created) got caught up in a mass-renaming spree by Tony1 (the vast majority of which, upon examining his move log, constituted excellent work with just a few errors), and subsequently became aware of this ArbCom request, I had not known that there was a coordinated campaign to enforce an imagined "authority" of MOS:CAPS as written by two or three editors without the involvement of a larger community.

My involvement here has to do with the naming of technical analysis indicators. The entire page Talk:True strength index contains arguments from those well-versed in the field and familiar with the mass of reliable sources (most of which are not online) against renaming to lowercase. It amazes me that a handful of editors wielding an incomplete style guideline would try to force-fit it to every article, effectively re-writing decades of standard usage by reliable sources.

The discussions on Talk:True strength index and Talk:Relative Strength Index pointing out that MOS:CAPS is a guideline that should be applied with a modicum of common sense seems to have fallen on deaf ears on the part of those who seem to want to treat it as absolute policy. The MOS:CAPS defenders, while civil, do appear to give higher priority to this guideline than to policy (such as WP:RS). In my view, their entrenched position on this matter borders on tendentiousness while not quite reaching it.

I was going to suggest a change to MOS:CAPS to include technical analysis indicators as creative works in the MOS:CT section, but then realized that this would be futile without wider community involvement, because the primary participants there are the same ones who promote the disruptive renaming of articles about technical analysis inventions in the first place.

I will note that the debate on Relative Strength Index has been closed as keeping the original uppercase version of the title, while the debate that started after Tony1 changed True strength index to lowercase is still open with no consensus. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The month-long dispute at WP:TITLE is about whether the recognizability criterion should be restricted to those familiar with the article's topic, or not. This dispute is really part of a larger one about so-called "pre-emptive disambiguation" that extends to interpreting WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and many RM discussions in which Noetica, Tony1 and Dicklyon are involved, because they hold a view contrary to long-held community consensus about titles. In particular, they want more descriptive information in titles in situations where the relevant policies, guidelines and conventions indicate otherwise, primarily because of our convention to add more descriptive information to titles only when needed to disambiguate the titles from others uses in Wikipedia.

• Dec 20, 2011 22:35 Tony1's edit alerts me that familiarity clause of the Recognizability criterion at WP:CRITERIA is gone.
  
• I researched history of wording.
  • Aug 17, 2010 Originally inserted
  • May 20, 2011 Discussion about simplifying recognizability wording
  • May 21, 2011 Familiarity phrase removed inadvertently
    
• Knowing some might oppose re-inserting the phrase despite it reflecting usage and consensus, I simultaneously fixed the policy page and added explanation to talk per BRD:
  • 23:13 Dec 20, 2011 Phrase restored
  • 23:13 Dec 20, 2011 Explanation on Talk
    • Discussion section: Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Clarification_of_recognizability_lost
  • 23:15 Dec 20, 2011 Reverted by Tony1 (talk · contribs)

• I was prepared to discuss it. I wasn't prepared for a discussion about why there needed to be a discussion.
  • 40 minutes of non-substantive discussion
  • 23:53 Dec 20, 2011 Born2cycle re-inserts phrase
  • 00:07 Dec 21, 2011 Phrase removed by Dicklyon
  • 00:15 Dec 21 2011 Noetica (talk · contribs) launches personal attack
  • 00:58 Dec 21, 2011 Dicklyon suggests "make proposal" and "wait for some discussion".
  • 01:09 Dec 21, 2011 Kotniski restores phrase
  • 01:26 Dec 21, 2011 Noetica removes phrase

This stonewalling insistence to discuss the change, while simultaneously not discussing the change, has been continued by Tony, Dicklyon and Noetica for over a month (see WP:AT); not one of them has said anything substantive about the edit.

Every editor who has spoken substantively about this edit has supported it. Consensus support for the change was established in the early discussions (which Noetica et al denied), but was confirmed again just this week in a poll in which re-inserting the phrase was supported unanimously.

Yet any time anyone tries to insert the change clearly supported by consensus , they revert , or manage to get an admin to revert to their preferred version , or even protect the page at their version

Their behavior is way beyond disruptive. It's so exasperating, Kotniski left on a break because of it.

I urge ARBCOM to find that Noetica, Dicklyon and Tony1 must adjust their behavior:

1. They must acknowledge that the community consensus is to disfavor additional precision in titles that is not needed to disambiguate from other uses of that title on WP.
2. If they revert an edit, they must address any good faith substantive argument in favor of making the edit. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Response to Statement by Kwami

Kwami continues to ignore that when the community looks at the two wordings, there is no question that unanimous consensus supports the wording with the familiarity wording. This was demonstrated clearly in the discussions in December where all substantive comments about the edit favored the version with the familiarity restriction , and even more clearly recently in Greg's poll. Kwami's claim that following this consensus-supported wording would lead to "overly conventionalized titles that are unrecognizable to anyone who needs to read the article in the first place" is bereft of foundation (i.e., actual examples). Besides, anyone who knows he "needs to read the article" must be familiar with the topic to some degree (or how could he know he needs to read it?) - and so this wording indicates that the title should be recognizable to such a person.

Most importantly, Kwami demonstrated his contrary-to-consensus bias regarding pre-emptive disambiguation on this issue back on Dec 15, so he should have known better than to involve himself as an admin on this issue in the first place, especially in making subjective decisions like deciding which version to lock, and engaging in an edit war. Kwami's involvement in this matter as a biased admin who refused to see the consensus that was plainly there made it impossible for this situation to be resolved by following that consensus, and is probably the main reason it has even gotten to Arbcom. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm unsure why the filer believes there's an intractible situation that warrants an ArbCom case, rather than community action if necessary. While there are disagreements at both wp:title and wp:moscaps (not wp:mos, as in the heading), this is hardly unusual in the evolution of policies and guidelines. The community needs to work through the issues calmly and gradually; there should be no hurry, since complexities are involved.

I don't understand why I've been named as a party, since my input has been only to participate with civility and in good faith in talk-page debate, and then only sporadically (I did revert a change I thought was premature and unwarranted, but that is hardly a behavioural transgression requiring arbitration; please examine my contributions). I don't have a solution for the scoping of article titles—I'm still trying to come to grips with the issues—and while the issues are interesting, I don't care enough about them to get worked up.

I've skimmed through the long posts above, and note that I'm being closely associated with Dicklyon (who upbraids me on technical and procedural matters) and Noetica; there is much I don't agree on with these editors, and I am my own person on these matters.

I hope this will be the only post necessary on this page. I ask that an arb or clerk ping me if a further response is required. Thanks. Tony (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It's unclear what behavior this AC proposal is intended to address. A few comments:

Born2cycle has pledged at AN to improve his contentious behavior; I don't see huge progress yet, but suggest we wait and see how that goes.

JCScaliger seems to have learned that his campaign to change the guidelines on capitalization was disruptive and elicited a lockdown at CAPS; I expect he'll pursue it still on the talk page, which is as it should be.

Noetica has made only 4 edits at MOS:CAPS in the last month, and has started a good discussion of the capitalization guidelines. His suggestion has a lot of support, and also a lot of opposition (including some from me), but it seems like a good discussion. His bold change, however, I have rolled back along with JCScaliger's bold change, after the unlock, since neither has yet gained consensus in the ongoing discussion. That seems stable.

Tony and I have been active in fixing over-capitalization, though not always in agreement with each other. These are mostly uncontroversial moves, unopposed RMs, and successful RMs, but there has been some pushback from editors in specific areas like the technical market indicators. Amatulic seems to be asking for an area exception in CAPS, but I don't see any behavior issues there.

I have been active on both the CAPS and TITLE talk pages. On the corresponding guideline/policy pages, I have made 2 reverts on each, and no other edits in the last month or so.

If anyone has an issue with my behavior, I'd like to hear about it first on my talk page, not at ArbCom. I'm open to input from anyone there (with the exception of Born2cycle, who I have asked to stay away from my talk page).

– Dicklyon (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

[I'll make a full statement soon. The scope of the projected case seems uncertain; but it's clear that WP:MOS has been implicated (with recent protracted discussion of capitalisation for specialised naming), and certain RMs. I've added certain involved editors as parties, who may be able to help ArbCom in its deliberations. The actions of some may be relevant also. Noetica^Tea? 05:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)]

I haven't been following the great MOS debate, so I guess I am here because I voted in some related RMs. I supported many of Tony1's excellent proposals to lower case titles that are improperly upper cased. (I regret only that I don't have time to vote for them all.) My votes are not based the MOS clause Tony1 cites, but rather on WP:CAPS, which states: "For page titles, always use lowercase after the first word, and do not capitalize second and subsequent words, unless the title is a proper noun." I have opposed various efforts by Noetica, Dicklyon, and others to include parenthetical descriptors that were merely explanatory in character. As I see it, WP:PRECISION stipulates that such descriptors be used only when necessary to disambiguate among existing Wiki articles. See, for example, French Quarter, Catholic Memorial School (West Roxbury, Massachusetts), The Artist (film), or Fry (Futurama). Kauffner (talk) 08:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I protected the AT page in Dec. at the last stable version during an edit war among several of the named parties, asking that they find another admin who could see the alleged consensus, which I failed to see, to resolve the issue. No such other admin came forward, despite B2C's requests at AN, so when the protection ended, the edit war started up again and I protected it again. There have been repeated recriminations over which version I should have protected it at, the one stable for the last six months, or the one which had been stable prior to that. The issue appears to be over how to best word AT to encourage professional-sounding titles without sanctioning jargon; I'm not sure there can be a correct answer, as I suspect either wording would be used to wikilawyer for ridiculous titles. (On one side, overly long titles that summarize the topic like 19th-century chapter headings; on the other, overly conventionalized titles that are unrecognizable to anyone who needs to read the article in the first place: Should we be immediately accessible to all, approach the topic like an introductory textbook, or write to the professional audience of the specialized journals we use as sources?) Perhaps the dispute could be remedied by giving examples of bad titles from both extremes, so that the intent of AT is clear? I have not been following much of the debate and don't expect to follow this one unless requested to return. — kwami (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

MOS pages are tagged: "... Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus." I am a copy-editing gnome with no FAs or major contributions and a continually developing understanding of the project, who had until recently considered the MOS as a relatively stable, foundational framework to guide editors in producing a relatively consistent work. This illusion dissolved in the last couple of months with a flare up in MOSCAPS, especially in the lead ( , , , , , , , , , , ), but eventually throughout the article. Multiple, significant, conflicting edits made by several editors, including wide sweeps that are difficult to track with inadequate edit summaries, sometimes BRD and sometimes under the guise of a couple of day's unannounced discussion and subsequent consensus among two or three participants, liquified MOSCAPS' once stable ground. I think arbitration to limit such instability and guide the MOS development process would be very helpful. Jojalozzo 00:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

My original post was too long. If anyone cares to, they can look at this perma-link for my original, overly-long post. The original post embodies not only my validation that I think there is merit to resolving the disfunction at WT:AT via ArbCom, but also proposes a remedy if this petition is accepted and the case is adjudicated. Johnuniq’s below post unfortunately endorses something that can only be viewed at the link.

I’ve pretty much stated all I intend to about this fiasco, which I think is disgusting. I’ve received absolutely appalling emails from editors with whom I’ve long had cordial relationships. Wikipedia is supposed to be a fun hobby for those who elect to civilly work in a collaborative manner. I was pleased to help resolve what the real community consensus was on WT:AT. But how much time I devote to the project and the manner in which I do it will not be determined by others.

I’ll be having nothing more to do with these proceedings. Greg L (talk) 09:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. BTW, the animation on the Main page right now is one I made.

I also have concerns about the editors included as involved. I was added since I do a ton of closes. I'm probably more of a victim in that sense. So I guess to some extent I agree with Greg L and his comments above. If this case is accepted, and there may be good reason to do so, then one of the first steps should be deciding how wide of a net needs to be cast. Let me know if I need to pay attention to this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

According to the explanation posted on my talk page, Noetica has "no issue with [me] at all"; I've been named as an involved party because I was a major participant in discussions about organism names at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. I didn't perform relevant edits to the actual guideline pages or to articles, despite my disagreement with some of the edits made by others.
Like Dicklyon, I'm unclear on what behavior is to be addressed. I'm more than willing to provide whatever helpful input I can, but I'm not entirely comfortable being deemed "involved" in a case in which I'm neither accused of misconduct nor implicating anyone else.
SarekOfVulcan notes that "'involved party' does not mean 'potential recipient of sanctions', it just means 'involved in the dispute under discussion'", but I always have understood it to mean more than "person who participated in discussions related to the dispute" (i.e. what the community is encouraged to do, in the hope of preventing its escalation to an ArbCom case). Such a definition stands to have a chilling effect, with editors shying away from good-faith discussion of contentious matters for fear of being "hauled before ArbCom" (instead of merely being informed of the case and invited to comment). —David Levy 02:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)