Case clerk: AlexandrDmitri (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: David Fuchs (Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Active:
Inactive:
Recused:
I know you guys are still working on this (much appreciated), but I would like to bring your attention to something in case it got missed. 1.2 says this:
That advise sounds reasonable on the surface, but the problem with establish consensus on the talk page first, and then make the changes is that it's too simplistic. It's too simplistic because WP:Status quo stonewalling, as was demonstrated at WP:AT/WT:AT, can be used to prevent changes from happening contrary to not only consensus, but even in the absence of any reasonable argument in opposition to the change whatsoever, for weeks. At WP:AT, we did have the "rapid cycle of editing", but the page was soon locked, so a bit later than would be ideal we did have the situation recommended here (though instead of getting there voluntarily, we were forced into it by admin page locking). And yet the problem persisted on and on from there. Despite repeated demonstration of clear consensus support for the change, those against successfully created the impression of substantive dispute and a lack of consensus. This is what caused Kotniski to quit, and what I was hoping Arbcom would analyze and address.
The issue was only resolved only after Kotniski had enough and quit Wikipedia, when Elen of the Roads finally unlocked the page, allowing for the change to be made, and threatening anyone who reverted to be blocked. Frankly, if it wasn't for this authoritarian action, there is no reason to believe the stonewalling wouldn't still be preventing the change from going in today, now almost three months later.
It's an insidious and highly disruptive behavior that I believe stems, not from not enough rules, but from insufficient enforcement of existing rules, in particular AGF and CIVIL. In this case we had editors reverting a change who clearly did not even read the arguments in favor of the change, and refused to discuss the change substantively after reverting. Why is this acceptable?
Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with this in principle, but it has little relevance to this particular case, and this can be abused, which is relevant to this case, because that's what happened here. The policy "change" in question here was not really a change but a restoration that was already reviewed by peers, and was in place with consensus support for almost a year before it was inadvertently removed. I explained all this in a comment simultaneous to restoring this wording. That's all in the submitted evidence.
Never-the-less, the edit was reverted. Fair enough. But then those reverting refused or were unable to explain why they objected to that wording (and even admitted to not reading the explanation for the change), except that I made the change. So I and others, after making more than reasonable efforts to get them to engage, reapplied the edit. I mean, when you're supposed to discuss, but those reverting refuse to discuss, what are you supposed to do? (Note how once Elen of the Roads declared that the change would be allowed, everything instantly quieted down. All the alleged "need to discuss" and "need to consider alternatives" was revealed to be the smoke screen that it was: nothing but stonewalling to retain the status quo.) They reverted again. In the mean time, others chimed in on the talk page, all in support of the change and wondering what the fuss was about. The page was locked due to an apparent dispute, but there really was no dispute (see below). This absurdity went on for over a month until Elen finally made her statement. This insidious disruption is the problem I was hoping Arbcom would address. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
The proposal "2.2) Pmanderson is indefinitely prohibited from engaging in discussions and edits relating to the Manual of Style" continues to ignore his long-term disruptive behaviour at TITLE; when Elen imposed such a ban after the AN/I or RFC/U or whatever it was, there was a bit of an outcry that she had ignored TITLE, even though the evidence showed a history of more than a dozen TITLE-related incident complaints and such, and even though there was clear community support for including TITLE and RM related discussions in his ban. I hope we don't repeat that mistake. Of course, a total indef block would be good, too. Dicklyon (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
This states:
With all due respect, this appears to be written by someone who is not very familiar with what has occurred at WT:TITLE since the problems first arose on Dec 21. Those of us in favor of the change to recognizability that was originally in question, have been asking for alternative wording to be proposed since Dec 21st. None has. There is no disputed passage. There never has been a disputed passage (within the scope of what this case is about)... by any reasonable meaning of "disputed".
That is, no substantive objection has ever been offered to the so-called Kotniski wording, and certainly no alternative wording has been proposed, much less any that might get consensus support. The wording that is in there now, the wording that I original restored, is the wording that has consensus support, and has had consensus support, since it was originally added by Kotniski. It was taken out earlier in 2011 in an effort to simplify the wording, by a group of editors who did not realize the change in meaning that resulted, and nobody noticed until I did late on Dec 20. Since then we have shown over and over that this wording has consensus support.
After all that, it is most distressing to see this referred to as "the disputed passage", which only shows further how successful the stonewallers have been at creating this aura of dispute, when none actually exists. It's their stonewalling behavior that is the problem here, not the wording. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
What previous proposals were submitted? I know of none. No evidence of any was submitted in the evidence to this case. That's the point. There is no dispute, but they created an aura of dispute, and stretched it out for weeks, involving dozens of editors, and creating an Arbcom case. That's the problem I was hoping you would investigate. Over what? Nothing!
Many of us who supported my Dec 21 restorative edit which was reverted asked over and over for alternative proposals, but none were ever offered.
Remember, this is ultimately about a very plain and simple point. When we choose titles, we try to make them recognizable, but not necessarily recognizable to someone unfamiliar with the topic. This is blatantly obvious from perusing a dozen or so of any random titles. So about two years ago Kotniski added wording that clarified this. No one objected, and it remained there for almost a year, until a small group of editors earlier in 2011 was looking to simplify some wording, and in that process removed the Kotniski clarification limiting the scope of recognizability. From their associated discussion it was clear they did not realize the significance of what they removed (this was confirmed when they were all informed and none expressed interest). When this was brought to my attention on Dec 20, I explained it on the talk page and restored the Kotniski wording. It should have ended right there, almost three months ago.
But three editors, who are apparently motivated by a desire to make many articles titles more descriptive by adding more precision to them than is necessary for disambiguation (here is a recent RM discussion in which Noetica is the only one who opposes, and here is one where Dicklyon is the only one - these happen all the time. Each one is not a problem in and of itself, but it shows how contrary to consensus their views are, but they keep persisting), contrary to broadly accepted consensus, and so seek to loosen the policy/guideline wording about that where possible, opposed the restoration of that wording, but wouldn't discuss their reasons in any substantive way.
I don't know if I've been clear or not, but the bottom line is that there is no dispute about the recognizability wording at WP:TITLE, and there never has been. All the ruckus was bullshit disruption, pure and simple. So remedies involving coming up with new proposals, or even worse, "continuing the discussion", when "continuing the discussion" (about nothing) was the disruption, are completely missing the point. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
AGK, I just noticed you said that I was "outnumbered in the content dispute"[1]. What content dispute are you talking about? How was I outnumbered? My position about the recognizability wording at WP:TITLE was supported by consensus unanimously.
You say my pursuit of consensus was "questionable". Really? I'm sorry, but I bent over backwards trying to explain what I was doing and why, encouraging everyone and anyone to weigh in, and showing repeatedly that my edit did have consensus support based on what editor after editor said and confirmed. My God, if achieving unanimous support for an edit is not achieving consensus, what is? I pleaded with the reverters to explain why the objected so we could work something out. But they never offered a single substantive suggestion. I tried and tried to think of a compromise, but just couldn't think of one, and explained why. After all that you say my pursuit of consensus was questionable? Frankly, I'm offended.
You also mention my "immovable grasp" of BRD. I ask again, what would you have me do? What you have done in my position? 1a) I made an edit that I don't think was bold because it restored wording clearly supported by practice and consensus, but... 1b) Just in case, per advise at BRD, I simultaneously explained/justified that edit. 2) Despite all my efforts, the edit was reverted. 3) Those reverting refused to discuss my explanation, or the pros/cons of the edit in any substantive manner. 4) Everyone else who weighed in supported the edit, for substantive reasons.
So, what would you have done? How do you do the D in BRD when the reverters refuse to D?
As to the alleged "dirt file", that's not what it was at all. As an admin I presume you can look at it. Have you? If you did look at it, you would see that it was obviously the start of a collection of diffs in preparation for DR. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm writing here to address what I see as some troubling statements in the proposed decision page, as well as elsewhere. As I tried to explain on the workshop page, the issue here is not about any specific editor - but it is about specific combinations of editors. B2C talks - a lot - and thereby draws a lot of attention. He talks when he's in the minority, and he talks when he's in the majority. In this case, his wording was actually in the majority, which a couple of arbs seem not to realize. But the issue is not B2C's rightness or wrongness. The issue is the interaction among editors. As I laid out on the workshop page - and as I hope is evident on the evidence page - there is a history among B2C, Pmanderson/JCScaliger, Noetica, Tony1, and Dicklyon. Various combinations of the first two and the latter three - but only in combination - leads to the edit warring and voluminous talkpages that we see scattered througout WP. PMA/JCS used a sock, and that's a problem. But I think it's wrong - on the evidence given - to single out B2C and not mention Noetica, Tony1, and Dicklyon. Their contributions to the WP:TITLE talkpage are self-evident.
Again, from my perspective, this is not primarily an MOS or TITLE issue - it's a personality issue. The editors I've named - in combination - lead to drawn out arguments, and more importantly, demoralized and burned-out editors. I really hope that the arbs can see that. And if I'm way off base, then please let me know how. If anyone would like me to point them to specific evidence that's been given in this case that backs up my assertions, I'd be happy to. Dohn joe (talk) 02:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Here we are almost 3 months later and I'm still waiting to hear what objection Tony has to this edit, what he thinks of my explanation, etc., and he claims he hasn't "clashed" at WP:TITLE? Seriously? BRD works, but only if the Reverter participates in the Discussion part. Tony did not.
Tony, if it wasn't for your counter-to-consensus revert, and your non-participation in substantive discussion about my allegedly-bold edit and your revert of it, NONE of this clash would have occurred.
This is exactly what I was hoping Arbcom would address. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Tony - I realize that I'm walking a fine line, but I'm trying very hard to separate the good work of individual editors, and the problems that can happen when those good editors interact with each other. I consider you a good editor; and as I said on the workshop page, I have worked productively with all the editors I named - you included. And I hope to do so in the future. My only problem is with the combination of PMA/JCS, B2C, you, Noetica, and Dicklyon.
To see what I mean, here's the contributions list for WP:TITLE from Dec. 21 to Dec. 31 of last year - the core of the ArbCom dispute. The top six contributors are, in order, B2C, Dicklyon, Noetica, Kotniski, Tony1, and JCScaliger. Those six made 70% of the edits of that 11-day stretch, with 23 other editors combining for 30%. Going a bit further back, from Dec. 7 to the 31st, it's the same editors (adding PMA and JCS together). A majority - but not all - of those edits was directed at, or came in response to, someone else within that group. And again, this is a fine line, because debate and discussion can be very healthy and productive. But there is a reason that SarekofVulcan decided to bring this case, and why other editors have agreed that there is a personality clash here. I don't know what the solution is, and I'm fairly sure that I've been sticking my foot in my mouth in even bringing it up. I just want to see good editors contribute productively to this great encyclopedia that we all care about. Dohn joe (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if anyone will care to hear from me (especially since I'm more "checked out" than in at this point), but I wanted to voice some support for what Don joe is saying here. It seems a bit strange that PMA and B2C are being singled out here (admittedly for differing reasons) while the others are left standing next to their flag. Pointing to "discretionary sanctions" seems wholly unsatisfactory. The combination of these six specific editors, who are otherwise generally productive editors, seems to create a caustic witches brew for whatever reason. I think that the committee is missing the target here, if ever so slightly.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 06:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I presume that when Kirill entered this section he meant to include TITLE, too, if that's what was decided on the Pmanderson ban. Clarification would be nice. However, I don't understand how this case expanded to MOS, when it was about MOSCAPS. Pmanderson was banned from all MOS, but this case's scope certainly didn't go there. Dicklyon (talk) 06:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
It is surprising that a 1RR rule wasn't used instead of discretionary sanctions for the MoS. The problem will lie in the behaviour of admins, some of whom either don't understand the WP:INVOLVED policy or choose to disregard it. There was an unfortunate incident last year in which an admin who has axes to grind WRT MoS indulged in patent CoI in closing an RM, refused to acknowledge the policy breach, and got off scott-free, supported by admin friends. Will admins actually observe the CoI rule properly in relation to this remedy? Will the ambit of CoI include acting where they have a significant opinion about an issue or about MoS in general, even though not previously expressed? There is now new opportunity for them to push their own views over specific aspects of the MoS by over-zealous use of this privilege.
But of course, the supreme irony is that the place where discretionary sanctions are more likely to be needed is WP:TITLE, the very page not covered. I just don't get it. Tony (talk) 13:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Further, you've completely side-stepped my basic point: why is WP:TITLE completely ignored by the "remedies"—a gap that accords with your apparent political agenda (by coincidence, I think), when the committee says it was the "locus" that triggered the case, and gives an implied sense that the community might work through a few of the original issues there (beyond my ability to form a solid opinion on, so I sadly can't be of much help). Your helpfulness more generally would really be appreciated; you are one of the few editors who could push things along to a harmonious conclusion, as a positive force. Perhaps you don't realise how undermining some of your posts are; but by contrast, I'd certainly put my trust in you to supervise an RfC or two at WP:TITLE. Tony (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, how much evidence can we submit in 500 words? :-( I didn't go looking for more evidence, because I knew I couldn't submit it if I found it. If I had thought the entire problem could have been laid at PMA and B2C's feet, I wouldn't have brought the case in the first place. Granted, it could have been just those two, with everyone else reacting to them, but... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to appeal to the arbs to review the evidence with an eye toward refining the "finding of fact" that "This dispute concerns contentious edits to the MoS and article naming pages that have been occurring sporadically for years." There was nothing presented in evidence (though it was asserted in the original complain) that supports the idea that this case is about "contentious edits to the MoS". Most of the complaints were from JCScaliger, banned sock of Pmanderson, who was the actual cause of the problem as he pursued his vendetta against editors who were involved in the process where he got himself banned from commenting on MOS. The evidence section by Jojalozzo, "Policy and MOS harmed by Bold" starts with a link to an edit that I made, after discussion on the talk page, which was not contentious and not reverted, and after which he made a series of bold edits himself. He is only talking about MOSCAPS, and even there fails to show a problem other than the JCScaliger/Pmanderson problem. The section by ErikHaugen titled "Completely halting all edits to the MOS is not necessary for productive debate to occur" makes more sense in characterizing how MOS usually works OK in sorting out differences of opinion. The only other mention of MOS is where Noetica has linked an example of Born2cycle editing guidelines in his favor after losing an RM.
There is absolutely no evidence, and very little allegation, of any current or ongoing problem at MOS. Even the recent litte edit war and locking caused by JCScaliger at MOSCAPS is only briefly mentioned in evidence, by Jojalozzo, and that problem has been taken care of by blocking the offender.
If the locus of dispute is cleared up – it's TITLE – then the confusion of MOS with TITLE in the remedies will be easier to sort out correctly. Can we get the attention of arbs who have already voted on this please? I understand the situation is complex, and some editors, due to the JCScaliger/Pmanderson link, saw the problem at MOSCAPS as related to the problem at TITLE, but the fact is that the connection was mostly his vendetta against three of us. The real problem was at TITLE, which is what all the evidence and discussion has been about since getting JCScaliger out of the picture. Dicklyon (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
This whole little section seems like a microcosm of the whole problem that created this proceeding, in my view. Tony wants diffs, but there's nothing specific to point to really. The problem here is with the general attitudes of a select few (self appointed people at that), of which PMA and B2C are only two. There are innumerable examples of until he drew his old buddy <whoever> in to help that are available to anyone who wants to look for them. Everything discussed on the talk pages within the scope of this proceeding ends up devolving down to the same bickering between the same people, and it's been that way literally for years now.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Being in the minority is not a problem, per se, of course. But coupled with other behavior (like reverting edits that have consensus support, and then refusing to discuss/explain) it does not become problematic, and, as I keep saying, at some point IDHT needs to apply. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Workshop: I also looked at the workshop to see if there was anything there that associated the MOS with contentious editing or any other allegation. Besides David Fuchs's proposed "Locus of the dispute" that got copied to here, there's nothing except one place where "MOS" and "contentious" are associated with JCScaliger. The comments about MOS are benign motherhood and apple pie, which I have no objection to. But there's no allegation of a problem at MOS besides JCScaliger. All the associations of the words "contentious" and "contentiousness" are with TITLE, or "the policy", except that one about JCS at MOSCAPS. Without the disruptive sock, there's no problem at MOS. I'm not saying there's no dispute (in fact, Noetica and I disagreed there, as the talk page shows), just that there's not disruption or contentiousness; as Jojalozzo's diffs show, there's a lot of civil discussion, then JCS and some reverts. Hardly a big deal.
If this can be fixed with a copyedit as AGK suggested, no problem. But it's disconcerting to see 7 votes in favor of what is clearly a misunderstanding. Dicklyon (talk) 06:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I've gotta get back to work next week, so I really don't have the time (let alone the desire) to dig myself further into this proceeding. That being said, rather than simply sniping at things and leaving, I'd like to throw a suggestion out there for some of you folks to consider. I see AGK commenting up above, which kind of gave me this idea: why don't the half dozen or so (un-banned) people involved in this take it upon themselves to undertake some sort of mediation style... thing (process, I guess)? As I said above, I agree with the opinion that Dohn joe expressed in #Born2cycle - et al., which can be summarized to say something like: "There are approximately six editors who are driving this whole discussion: B2C, Dicklyon, Noetica, Kotniski, Tony1, and PMA/JCScaliger (who is probably going to be banned, but that's a side issue)." Tony is obviously a little perturbed at being mentioned in this group, but... it is what it is. I don't think anyone (and certainly not myself) wishes to get rid of all of these guys, but something has to be done so that they can collectively find more common ground. The constant bickering and grinding every little change and issue into dust is counter productive, in my view (heck, I think that Kotniski has given up because of it).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I am in particular open to advice, and especially what I could have done differently in this case. I mean, if you make a good faith edit that you're confident is supported by consensus (this was confirmed repeatedly in this case) and you're reverted, what do you do? What I did was address the person reverting to find out why they reverted, to try to find consensus, but they refused to engage in discussion about that. So now what? Well, I thought/hoped they might be backing off since they had no argument, so I reverted the revert, but I got reverted again, by another person. So I try to engage with them - same thing. Others who joined in expressed support for my edit; nobody opposed. They restored my version, but the reverters reverted that too. I sought admin assistance at ANI; no one responded. Others tried to get the reverters to explain their position, make a counter-proposal, etc., all to no avail. This went on for days and then weeks. Finally Greg L created a poll where the overwhelming consensus support for my edit, which was always there, finally became blatantly obvious to everyone. But it took about a month to get there.
In the last few weeks I've cut down my activity at WT:TITLE, and yet there is still no explanation or counter-proposal. So much for the excuse that it was alleged dominance by me there that inhibited others from discussing.
So, what should I have done instead of what I did? What is the lesson here? --Born2cycle (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Ohm's law I see above that you're persisting in including me as some kind of agent for trouble. In this drip-feed smearing without evidence—backed up by your compelling argument "it is what it is"—why stop at "six" editors? Perhaps you could explain just why you've chosen six as the golden number from this list, which doesn't even show word lengths. It would be too easy to reciprocate, especially in the case of Dohn joe, but accusing is not my style—I'd rather collaborate. And if I did have reason to accuse, I'd provide evidence (on the right page).
B2C, I was favourable towards more descriptive titles until I realised (ahem, some time ago now) that it's very hard to balance against the need to prevent clutter, not to mention the undesirability of giving the green light to gnomes to putting descriptive parentheses in masses of articles. I just don't have an answer, so would rather others gave their opinions from the community. Tony (talk) 07:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I think "you guys simply talk until everyone else gives up and leaves" is a red herring. In the first few days of the dispute at TITLE, many editors chimed in, and all supported my edit. They didn't give up. All their opinions were there, one after another. What I don't get is why that wasn't enough to convince Dicklyon, Tony and Noetica that my edit - the one they kept reverting - had consensus support.
Finding, building, achieving and following consensus is key to the way we make decisions on WP. The reason it fell apart in this case is because those in the minority, with views and/or behavior contrary to consensus (at a minimum they were reverting an edit that had consensus support), refused to recognize it, refused to admit it, refused to discuss it, and admins did not recognize that as disruptive behavior. I ask again, what is one supposed to do in that situation (besides walk away)?
I'm really happy to see that Tony has realized the main reason consensus opposes unnecessarily descriptive titles (more descriptive than necessary for disambiguation) - because there is no way to make some titles unnecessarily more descriptive without making title decision-making significantly more contentious than it already is.That is, there is nothing inherently wrong or problematic with a more descriptive title - the problem is in how to decide which titles should be more descriptive, and how much more descriptive, etc.
But that's besides the point. The point is that Tony, Dicklyon and Noetica reverted a consensus-supported edit of a policy page, and then refused to discuss it. We can't find, build and follow consensus with behavior like that. That's the problem, and I who tried everything he could think of to deal with this situation, and nothing worked, is the one being sanctioned. Well, if I did something wrong, then I'd like to know what it was, and what I should have done instead. Is that asking too much? --Born2cycle (talk) 08:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I can't even imagine responding to something that I didn't pay attention to, yet I'm the one who is being told to "talk less and listen more"[27]. If I wasn't paying attention to what others were saying, and was just going on and and on about whatever it was that I wanted to say, that suggestion might make sense.
But here Oms Law admits to not paying attention to what I wrote, committee members haven't paid enough attention to realize my position was the one supported by consensus, or that TITLE is policy and MOS is just a guideline, much less appreciate how that difference affects community decisions. Not to mention that this whole thing started with people who reverted a consensus-supported edit and refused to read the associated explanation.
Oh, the irony. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
As to my TLDR posts... what does that have to do with this case? I made my edit of the recognizability criterion at WP:TITLE in good faith, knowing it had consensus support (as was later confirmed), but still explained it on the talk page per BRD. You, Noetica and Tony opposed and reverted for no reason other than because it was me who made the edit. Foolishly, I and others tried to get you guys to explain your objection so your concerns could be addressed, over and over, to no avail. Yes, some of those efforts lead to TLDR comments. Sorry, but what else could I do? What should I have done instead? Quit WP, as Kotniski did because of your "appalling behavior"? Is that what you're trying to do?
None of this explains how your reverts of a consensus-supported edit was justified - and why it required way more evidence of consensus support than I've ever seen for such a minor edit (Greg L's poll), and the threat of block from Elen, for you to stop reverting. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
How would following the advice to wait more than 68 minutes have changed anything? After over a month went by and over a dozen editors voted unanimously in a poll in support of my edit, Elen still had to threaten you with a block to keep you guys from continuing to object and revert. If it took that to stop you, what makes you think me posting less would have stopped you? --Born2cycle (talk) 07:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Two comments for now:
Hopefully the above can be clarified in the final decision, but what I really hope is that it will be possible to lay down a benchmark that individual editors over-specialising and clashing with others within that specialisation, is in the long run a bad thing. Having individuals, or small groups, ending up as the 'go to' people for particular issues is anti-thetical to the whole ethos of Wikipedia, which should be based on large collaboration, wide participation, and as flat a hierarchy as possible, rather than incessant and never-ending debate between small groups. Carcharoth (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
How is that not a negation of WP:IAR? Maybe it should use something narrower than "Behavior that violates Wikipedia's policies", say "Disruptive behavior" or "Behavior that violates the spirit of Wikipedia's policies" or something. ― A. di M. 18:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I'm very upset about this.
This section states: Born2cycle is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors.
This is supported by AGK, Elen of the Roads, Jclemens, Courcelles and now PhilKnight.
So about this statement I ask each or any of you:
If these questions about this statement cannot be answered, then I request that it be removed, because without answers to these questions, it's meaningless and pointless; certainly not helpful.
Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I took my lead from the worrying portfolio of evidence given in this case. Frankly, the problem is that, while you seem open in principle to discussion and compromise, in practice you never make a concession or admission to any other editor who is not on "your side". Whilst it may be that you are unfailingly and wholly correct in every comment you make, the most likely conclusion is that you simply aren't open enough to collaboration and compromise, which is extremely concerning to see in a Wikipedia contributor.
Here, you shout down User:Milkunderwood, asking if they "are serious?". Here, you forum-shopped with respect to a move about Iodised salt to Idoized salt (for whatever it's worth, I would find it a blatant Americanism to see it spelt with an s, so I disagree with much of what you said there, but I'm not sure how far that plays out in other nations). Here, you essentially badgered a closing administrator who did not support your proposal in their decision; although you say "I don't mean to be a nag, I'm just puzzled", the impression I get is that you can't help but pursue any dissent with your views.
As with many such cases, such actions are not worrying of themselves, but taken as a whole they show a significant problem that we cannot fail to address in our decision. There are countless other examples, and all demonstrate the attitude that underlies your discussion about article titling, stylistics, and most associated subjects. In this context, a warning that you need to be more receptive to compromise in a situation where your view is not obviously the only acceptable one seems rather understandable. AGK [•] 01:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the forum shopping you accuse me of - what does that have to do with this case at all? Anyway, I don't see how what I did there constitutes forum shopping, especially considering I started that discussion after the RM discussion in question was closed. Regarding our apparent difference of opinion there (by the way, did you notice how I changed my opinion at that RM discussion?), I trust you're not holding that against me.
In regard to my response to Milkunderwood, you ignore the context. He was objecting to edits as being "under discussion" after an RFC poll showed an extremely rare unanimous support for those edits. I really truly was flabbergasted, and did wonder if he was serious. What's wrong with that? In retrospect, I think he was just confused.
Regarding what you call "badgering" an admin, what about WP:ADMINACCT? It says: "Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.". Was I uncivil? Did I make a personal attack? Were my questions not made in good faith? You're not the first one to imply that questioning and criticizing admins is problematic. I find that disturbing. Is that why I'm being railroaded here?
But my main question is this. I recognize I sometimes take too many words to say what I want, and people tend to tune out. Okay, but is that so bad? More importantly, how would my posting less at WT:TITLE have changed anything there? Would Dicklyon, Noetica and Tony1 have backed off if someone else restored the consensus-supported recognizability wording? The evidence indicates otherwise. Why is there not more focus on their behavior? Their behavior, not mine, caused all the consternation, not only at TITLE, but also at MOS and countless RM discussions. If you don't see that, you're not looking very hard. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I haven't bothered to look back at these pages for quite a while, and while I'm not particularly surprised to find the same-old-same-old being endlessly repeated, I am surprised that it is being allowed.
Since everyone is repeating themselves, I will take the opportunity to also repeat myself here:
I propose adding language something like the following to the lead at BRD:
OK, this is too wordy and long, in my proposed phrasing. But I'm convinced that adding something to this effect would cut out a huge proportion of these endless squabbles. Milkunderwood (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
So I don't see how the problem is lack of discussion first.
The other thing is that one of the reasons BRD works is sometimes it takes a bold edit to get others engaged. If you just start a discussion it often gets ignored. This is just as true for policy pages as it is for article pages. But BRD works when those objecting participate in the D part. In this case they did not, but continued to object. That was the problem.
My hope here is that the Arbs will recognize and rule that Reverting a Bold edit and then not engaging in substantive discussion about the bold edit during the Discussion phase of BRD is a form of Disruptive Editing (as I've been misunderstood about this before, let me clarify that I'm not saying the reverters need to initiate discussion about their revert, but if the proponents of the bold edit do start a discussion, it's disruptive for the reverters to not engage, especially if they continue to revert as evidence of consensus support for the edit piles on in the discussion). --Born2cycle (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
You ignored my point about how the bold edit part of B helps to stimulate discussion.
I should add in this case that there was no question about consensus support for the change I was making, as it had already been part of the policy, and was clearly taken out inadvertently (as part of an effort to "simplify" wording without changing meaning), and nobody noticed or realized the ramifications of its removal when it happened. I explained all this in that initial talk page comment which you'll see if you review as I just suggested.
At any rate, making edits to policy without discussing first is the norm and has been the norm (for better or worse, the vast majority of all policy edits are done without discussion first, which makes it the de facto norm). Even if consensus develops for your idea, it really has no application to this case, since it was not the accepted consensus norm at the time I made the edit. BRD certainly was.
Finally, even if we started off on the wrong leg because I made the edit and started the talk page discussion simultaneously (exactly as BRD recommends) rather than just starting on the talk page, we should have recovered from that in a few days if not a few hours or even minutes. That it took weeks indicates something else was going on. I call it Status quo stonewalling.
Also, consider this. If someone makes a proposal, no one has any obligation to comment. If someone edits, and you revert, and you're asked why you reverted, don't you agree the reverter has an obligation to explain why? And substantively? I mean, reverting with "discuss first" and no substantive explanation is just a form of a WP:JDLI argument, don't you think? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Finding 4 states: Born2cycle's editing on the disputed pages and related subjects has hampered efforts at resolution, specifically by excessive responses and not following the spirit of WP:BRD.
Can someone (and it would be nice to hear from someone other than AGK who has gotten plenty wrong, but at least he seems to be taking this somewhat seriously) please clarify/explain how my editing has "hampered efforts at resolution, specifically by excessive responses and not following the spirit of WP:BRD."?
It was not my edits that hampered efforts at resolution at WP:TITLE - it was the edits (specifically the reverts) of Noetica, Tony and Dicklyon, as well as their non-substantive commentary (they would not discuss the content being added or why it should or should not be added) at WT:TITLE that hampered efforts at resolution there. Again, it was my edit and argument that clearly had consensus support from Day 1. They disrupted that, for weeks, until Elen of the Road threatened them with a block if they continued to revert. To accuse me instead of them of hampering resolution there is preposterous. I remind you again, it was their outrageous behavior that caused Kotniski to quit, and you're looking at me? If you're wondering why WP is losing so many editors, look no further than your own work on this case.
If you're not talking about TITLE, what are you talking about? I didn't see any evidence about my behavior elsewhere submitted here. The "disputed pages and related subjects" phrase is ridiculously vague.
As far as not following the spirit of BRD, what does that mean? I think BRD is great. I reread it specifically prior to this edit to policy and followed it to the t. This is the specific part of BRD that applies to what I did:
That's exactly what I did. I had the policy page edit and talk page edit in separate tabs, and hit SAVE on both moments apart. Then my edit was reverted, but those reverting (Dicklyon, Noetica, Tony1) refused to take part in the D part of BRD (in a substantive manner). I followed the letter of BRD, they blatantly ignored it altogether, but you say I did not follow "the spirit" of BRD??? What is the "spirit of BRD" that I missed??? This is simply inexplicable.
I'm sorry, but I'm really starting to wonder about this. Are you people even familiar with what happened in the case you're supposed to be evaluating? You've gotten so much backwards and wrong, I really have to wonder. Others have noted that I have been "railroaded" here and not treated fairly. I'm losing all my confidence in what you're doing.
I don't know if there is an appeal process to whatever you decide, or what it is, but if there is one, and you follow through with this absurd finding, I assure you I am going follow every appeal avenue there is. So please, explain yourselves. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill[28]
Elen of the Roads wrote: "Born2cycle was the subject of a monumental amount of complaints for his editing at the Yoggit rfc[29]
I presume she means Yogurt. I am very proud of my hard work at Talk:Yogurt. That conflict lasted eight years, and I was instrumental in getting it finally resolved, particularly with the creation of Talk:Yogurt/yogurtspellinghistory. My impetus there was not one spelling or another, but getting a conflict resolved. My work at Talk:Sega Genesis, (which also lasted for years before I got involved) was similar, including the FAQ there which I also completely rewrote, and at countless other RM discussions. Yogurt was much more difficult because of how strongly some felt about retaining the one spelling. Of course, at each of these, there are some who disagree with my position, and many end up complaining. People get pissy when they don't get their way. At Yogurt there were almost a dozen different RM discussion over the better part of a decade, each always ending up in no consensus. With much work, following the advice at WP:CONSENSUS using persuasion to build consensus, we finally got a real consensus decision there, and you blame me for that? Elen seems to be looking at the number of complaints, rather than their quality, considering the absolute dearth of any evidence of my acting inappropriately. I've never been sanctioned for anything, and now you guys are going to warn me because of people who complain about me because I stand up for something and they disagree?
At TITLE, my position is strongly supported by consensus (I never push a position very hard unless it's supported by consensus).
This is how you treat editors who do the thankless job of resolving difficult and longstanding conflicts?
If I did something wrong or inappropriate at Yogurt, TITLE or anywhere else, I would really like to know what specifically it is. These vague and dubious allusions to something about which others complained are not helpful at all. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)