Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions

Is this arbitration about disruptive behavior, guideline interpretation, or both? --Serge 18:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought guideline interpretation but it has certainly shifted to more personal issues - and that's putting it lightly. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

In spite of all the details and side complaints, I think it just comes down to: Does TV:NAME have consensus? The whole situation is just a couple editors refusing to accept an obvious consensus. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's about consensus - whether it was reached. And also possibly about whether wikiprojects have the power to trump naming conventions. The result i'm hoping for is just a decleration that we got consensus, and that people should respect consensus. --`/aksha 23:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement for the record by PKtm, a relatively uninvolved party

Various claims have been made in this dispute that the poll didn't matter because discussion ensued. I would like to go on record here as being one of the people who chose not to participate at all in the original poll (and who actually still hasn't taken a side on the substance of the argument), for two main reasons:

• The dispute, as well documented in the Evidence, fell very quickly into personal attacks and highly bitter interactions in general. This chronic incivility continues even now, as exemplified here, and I have seen little to no intervention by admins to admonish people to stay civil. It seems like anything goes, and any outside observer would clearly see that a number of edits by people involved in the dispute have been retaliatory and vindictive, in that they've touched and challenged unrelated articles that were edited by their "enemies". I view this behavior as shameful, even if any particular challenge is "right" in terms of principle.
• The poll was a moving target, with lots of changes.

Subsequently, I was disheartened from future participation both by the ongoing, unmitigated tone of the overall discussion and then by Wknight94's immediate, defensive, and then very personal attacks on me here, here, and here, when I voiced my opinion on how the dispute was going and my dismay at people's behavior.

Maybe I'm still new here, but still, I've amassed some 2,500 edits in a little over a year. Yet, I have never seen a discussion on Wikipedia go quite so badly in terms of civility.

I believe that the ongoing extremely personal nature of the discussion and the general behavior in this dispute have driven participation away, and want to voice that belief. As I've stated, here, I am greatly curtailing my editing in Wikipedia as a result of this dispute and the behavior I've seen, particularly on the part of some admins.
-- PKtm 22:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Per my comment above about ongoing incivility, in many cases perpetrated and perpetuated by WP admins: see the utter disrespect and the "them against us" attitude espoused here. Very dismaying. -- PKtm 00:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

And again, here. The same admin who dismissed my points as "hit and run allegations" now dismisses my concerns as an "appeal to pity". -- PKtm 06:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Response (to PKtm's 'statement')

Look PKtm, it's obviouse that some people aren't pleased by your behaviour. And it doesn't seem like you're pleased about how other people are acting either. So how about you sum up your 'statement' here and put it to the evidence page - the place where the ArbCom are likely to take notice of your words and deal with it as they see fit. Because your unlikely to get a response here, and in my personal opinion...making allegations here like this is only serving to stir up more tension, whether or not this is your intention. --`/aksha 07:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a good idea at all. The discussion is personal enough already. let's keep this Arb as focused as at all possible. So many people insulted and were insulted there is no point in discussing the insults anymore if you ask me. Let's try to keep to Naming conventions - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 01:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Indications are that this proceeding will be more geared towards "user conduct" than naming conventions [1]. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate user conduct makes up a large portion of this problem. --`/aksha 03:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Izzy Dot

User:Izzy Dot's conduct is being discussed at the /Proposed decision, but he's not under Involved parties so probably doesn't know this. He should probably be given a chance to explain his actions. --h2g2bob 21:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I left him/her a note. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Riverbend

Having never been involved in an arbitration before, I am not sure if my statement is relevant and I don’t have the time to become a “party” and build a case – others are doing a good, comprehensive job. I came to this discussion late and haven’t posted lately, but I just wanted to present another (more rhetorical) angle for consideration, in regards to the behavior of some members of the “majority” and why I found it to be so problematic. In the wikipedia context, decisions are supposed to be made through discussions resulting in either consensus or supermajority support. In any situation where decisions and policy are reached in a democratic (or pseudo-democratic) manner, a majority-minority dynamic is likely to exist. In such a case, it is tempting and easy for the apparent majority to force their way through things and stamp out dissent. Accordingly, those in the majority of a discussion-based process should have some responsibilities along with their power - the responsibility to listen to the minority, the responsibility to be respectful, and the responsibility to be open to new ideas or new voices as they emerge (as further discussions from a broader range of individuals can overturn or challenge localized Wikipedia consensus), and the responsibility to assure that the decision was reached fairly in the first place. Procedural fairness – and the perception of procedural fairness – should be valued by all wikipedians, and not be treated so lightly. While this particular naming convention issue may have little importance in the grand scheme of things, the issues of majority behavior and procedural fairness involve principles that have much broader application. I felt that the "dissent" was trying to say this the whole time and nobody was really listening.

In this case, the original poll was flawed and many at the time supported (for one reason or another) another poll. The discussion that followed was inflamed, tense, and often rude, and consisted of rapid-fire responses spanning several different pages. It was difficult to follow and intimidating to respond to (speaking for myself). In this case, some in the majority has even gone so far as to (quite often) claim that no dispute even existed and denying that more than one person felt marginalized. When members of the apparent minority find procedural failures in the process, they should not be ignored or labeled as "whiners" and "sore losers" for insisting that those failings be addressed. Plus, whether or not other participants felt that their vote had been tainted at the time, the discussion had attracted more people over the weeks of "discussion" and it wouldn't have hurt anybody to have re-started the poll and discussion in a centralized place to encourage the most active, organized, and constructive discussion with a broader range of participants. Yes, the poll certainly isn't the determining factor - the discussion obviously is. However, the discussion was, in many ways, overly aggressive, positional, and unconstructive, and it was noted several times that it was intimidating/difficult/confusing for newcomers to join. Dissenters (and supporters!) should have been given a better, more reasonable opportunity to both vote AND join in a clean discussion. If they were still the minority, then fine - at least the majority can rest easy knowing that they "won" fairly and the minority can at least know that they did the best they could to explain and express their position(s). I honestly believe that this conflict would never have progressed this far if the “majority” had behaved in a more respectful way and put forth more effort to embrace principles of fairness and civility.

Elonka has done a fine job of gathering rude and uncivil remarks that have been made throughout this discussion, I don’t really have anything to add,. I bring this up only because I feel that the tone and steady stream of rude comments bring down Wikipedia as a whole, and turn people away from the process, and discourage open discussion. It is just something to think about, and I hope that those individual editors who inflamed the discussion with unnecessary rudeness are officially encouraged to keep their tempers in better check. That’s my 2 cents, anyway. I wish everyone the best of luck, and I am sure that wikipedia will benefit substantially when everyone’s attention can be more fully directed toward editing!Riverbend 23:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions clarification

The final decision notes that "It is the responsibility of the administrators and other responsible parties to close extended policy discussions they are involved in."

1. What is a "responsible party?"
2. What sort of expectation is it to close an "extended policy discussion?" At what point is it "extended," and at what stage is it okay to throw in the towel? At an arbitrary moment or simply when the discussion becomes "disruptive?"

Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

An established and respected user who is not an administrator could close a discussion. An extended policy discussion is one in which most aspects of the question has been discussed, alternatives considered, in short, a full discussion. Good judgement is needed to determine when consensus has been reached or when it is obvious there is no consensus. When the discussion becomes disruptive, more heat than light, it is probably past time to close the discussion and declare a result. Fred Bauder 22:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

So nothing really specific, per se? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The subject does not lend itself to bright line rules. The question is whether the question has been fully discussed and a decision reached. Fred Bauder 01:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Jeff got me thinking, and.. that's not really useful. It's basically saying "If you think you're right then say so and tell everyone to shut up". Won't everyone think they're right in a discussion/dispute/etc? If the situation is reasonably clear one way or the other then we usually don't have to resort to something like this to end it. The situations this is supposed to be helpful in are usually too unclear to actually use this. -- Ned Scott 05:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions involved a matter where there was a consensus, but no closing. Based on lack of closing, an opposition party engaged in move warring. That was the problem we were trying to address. Fred Bauder 03:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's one way to look at it, but the solution offered still isn't helpful. Nothing personal. -- Ned Scott 04:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• As Fred Bauder said, the gauging of consensus is not something that lends itself well to hard line rules. That is why we have a special permission for users that guage consensus in promotions - bureaucrats (they do other things, too, but that's why the permission was created IIRC). It's a tricky business, but not unsurmountable. When in doubt, further discussion can never hurt. Requests for third (or hundredth) opinions can be useful. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ned, in this situation the result was "reasonably clear" (80% supermajority over a relatively minor issue) but a vocal minority engaged in move warring and disruption. We all agree to operate on consensus, and in most cases policy discussions sort of peter out when the parties get bored, or realize they are losing, and find other things to do, leaving the active particpants to implement the consensus result. Here there was a small but very vocal minority that did not accept the result, possibly because the people who were telling them that they lost were the people they had been arguing with all along, and possibly because there is no "official" way to close a policy discussion. (Unlike XfD, where there is a clear procedure for ending the discussion, announcing the result, and implementing it.) The arbitration remedy authorizes the participants in a debate to close it when consensus is demonstrably achieved, and announce and implement the result. (Although, with all due respect to Fred and the other arbitrators, I think it should have said "uninvolved" editors or admins, and I would hope that in future situations, a majority faced with a vocal and upset minority would seek outside help.) Thatcher131 00:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, a good many of us thought it was obvious from day one, but a big problem was how it appeared to people outside of the debate (specifically, how it was being represented outside of the debate). Not only that, but more than once we had "announced" an end/consensus during the debate, so technically we did do the very thing suggested. I understand and agree with the meaning of the statement, but this statement as a tool to help avoid such conflicts in the future doesn't seem very helpful to me. -- Ned Scott 05:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It's better than nothing? At this point you can take a future conflict to arbitration enforcement and say: "see, here we discussed a policy, and here's the consensus, and here we announced it per the Naming Conventions case decision, and Thatcher is still move and edit warring over it, so please enforce the decision by blocking Thatcher until he gets the message." At least it clearly puts the burden of proof on the minority to show that a consensus was not reached, rather than on the majority to prove that consensus exists. Thatcher131 05:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Definitive closing should involve using clear closing methods such as {{archivetop}} and {{archivebottom}}. Furthermore, common sense dictates that a clear consensus followed by a definitive closing will be easy. If necessary, ask an impartial closer to do the deed, stating that you'll respect their common sense judgment. To this day, I've only encounter one closing that, using this method, seemed at all inaccurate. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification regarding Naming Conventions consensus finding

Should existing guidelines, such as those presented in the Manual of Style, be treated as a community consensus until and unless consensus is established to change them? Seraphimblade 11:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, anything that matches established community practice and is relatively uncontroversial can be assumed to enjoy a community consensus, regardless of where it happens to be written down. I would be wary, however, of extending that to those points in the MoS that don't match actual community practice (and there are a few, usually on the more obscure MoS pages) unless there has been an explicit consensus that they be adopted. Kirill Lokshin 13:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

In this case, what brought the question on was a section in Wikipedia:Manual of style (dates and numbers) on binary prefixes. This section states that the use of XiB prefixes (such as MiB) should be used rather than notation such as megabyte where the binary representation is more accurate. This guideline was adopted by consensus some time ago, but recently was disputed after a newer editor attempted to actually make the recommended changes, and those changes were reverted (in many cases while being called "vandalism".) The dispute has not reached the level of a consensus to change the guideline. Are there any recommendations for such a situation? Seraphimblade 13:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, given that the MoS doesn't appear to correspond to what article editors are actually doing in practice, it's somewhat questionable whether it (still) enjoys consensus in this case. I would suggest starting a (widely publicized—try leaving notes with the relevant WikiProjects, and on the talk pages of some prominent articles) discussion with the intent of figuring out what the MoS should say on the topic (rather than the somewhat narrower yes/no question of whether what it currently says is correct). Kirill Lokshin 13:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Thank you for your help. Seraphimblade 13:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)