Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC.

Shortcut

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions   10 May 2024 0/6/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions

Initiated by AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) at 02:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

NOTE: Additional requested moves have taken place where debates on WP:NCROY occurred. The below list encapsulates, in chronological order, the discussions the original poster (OP) thinks are relevant for this case request.

Statement by AndrewPeterT

Dear ArbCom,

I apologize in advance if my tone is improper. This is my first request.

At the core of this case request are behavioral concerns regarding how disagreements with WP:NCROY have been expressed. I come to ArbCom to request binding guidance on how to cease the constant user drama over how WP:NCROY should be applied. I also come to ArbCom to request binding guidance for all users on how to react when a personal interpretation of any guideline is rejected by community consensus.

I do not know if the linked discussions count as acceptable “lesser” methods of dispute resolution. However, over many months, at a plethora of venues, from talk pages to RMs and RfCs, bludgeoning, forum shopping, and even breaches of 5P4, among other concerns, have taken over conversations on WP:NCROY and left many users (myself included) exhausted.

I fail to see how any further discussion at WP:AN or WP:ANI can address such frequent and widespread behavior. Moreover, given the persistence in how some users have acted when their opinions are rejected, I likewise do not believe the non-binding guidance of WP:DRN will address these frustrations, which go beyond content disagreements.

Now, I will be honest - I am guilty myself of having let my emotions take over and acted disruptively when arguing for my interpretation of WP:NCROY. Additionally, I have owned up to and apologized for these lapses in judgement: A, B, and C. Furthermore, I have even started RMs to implement the consensus of WP:NCROY despite my personal disagreements: D.

What does it say about the community when RMs go a few months without a formal closure, only to be taken straight to a WP:MR discussion with comments inappropriate for such a venue (as noted in E)? Above all, what does it say about the community when closers of RMs are hesitant to even participate in closing WP:NCROY-related discussions (for fear of starting heated and possibly WP:UNCIVIL discussions): F and G?

Finally, I apologize if I have invited users who do not wish to participate in this case request. The basis of my proposed parties are (as I see) the key participants of two recent MR discussions for Edward IV and David III of Tao. But these are far from all the users involved. And the fact that I am saying this is a major reason that I am filing this case request.

Thank you very much for your consideration. Other users are welcome to elaborate on what I have discussed. I request an extension of my word count to answer inquiries from other users.

Sincerely,

AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 02:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TimothyBlue

  • I've made my position clear, the behavior in closing this discussion was unacceptable. This needs to be examined. @AndrewPeterT: fails to mention any of this. The close needs to be vacated, reopened for discussion, then properly closed. Closing guidelines need to unambiguously reflect that the way this was closed was unacceptable. I haven't looked at the other discussions, but if they were closed in a similar fashion, the same should apply.  // Timothy :: talk  06:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A set of editors is determined to make NCROY into a super guideline, and now uses it as a cudgel to dismiss all other guidelines related to these article titles, such as WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISE, to force through their desired changes. @Huwmanbeing: comment is spot on: That last point is worth reiterating, since I've seen repeated suggestions that the RMs must close per NCROY regardless of any and all objections — and worse, that anyone who suggests otherwise is being disruptive. What happened after the first NAC close of the David articles is representative (but not the only example) of their agressive behavior.
  • It is clear from the RM discussions, reviews, and this, the NCROY RFC does not match the consensus of the community (@Thryduulf: has compiled statistics.[1]) and needs to be undone and reconsidered in light of the problems it is causing. NCROY needs reconciled with other guidelines such as WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISE both of which it is now being used against. The RfC clearly did not take this into account properly and is flawed.
  • @Born2cycle: behavior is probably the worst as others have noted, there is no way this type of behavior should be tolerated, especially in a CTopic area. Given their previous warnings, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Born2cycle, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Born2cycle warned and other editors concerns noted here, this should be addressed.
  • Neutral guidance is needed here, it would be unfortunate if this is just sent back into the fray with no clear path forward. A push to a neutrally mediated WP:DRN or WP:RFC might help.
  • It seems this will not be taken up by Arbcom, but @AndrewPeterT: has at least started the process of getting this sorted out. Guidance would be helpful.  // Timothy :: talk  22:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another BADNAC without consensus at [2], This (the problem under discussion here) needs to be addressed.  // Timothy :: talk  12:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Soni: re: Fredrick close, Why did you ignore closing guidelines and close an obviously contentious RM while all this was being discussed? Ignoring closing instructions is a conduct issue.  // Timothy :: talk  21:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huwmanbeing

I agree with AndrewPeterT that the current situation around NCROY and its related RMs is exhausting, and I think it's good to see what if anything can be done to improve matters, or at least make things smoother in future RM cycles.

I also agree (in a way) that IDONTLIKEIT or JDLI are a big part of the problem, but not in the way AndrewPeterT seems to suggest. Some participants in recent RMs have developed the bad habit of dismissing any and all opposing arguments as mere JDLI even when they explicitly and repeatedly appeal to policy, guidelines, title criteria, etc. This seems to stem from the belief that there is only a single valid interpretation of policy or application of guidelines: their own. This is tendentious, it shuts down productive discussion, and — if we want to get to a place of more healthy and less contentious debate — it needs to stop. (Q.v. wbm1058's statement.)

If it doesn't, then what we see at NCROY is almost guaranteed to continue:

  • Participants see any closure that doesn't favor their preferred position as not just disappointing but as genuinely baseless and intolerable.
  • Pestering closers with requests to undo their closures becomes a standard procedure that normally follows any RM, rather than a rare thing to be done only in instances of truly improper closures (which can still happen).
  • Dismissive claims of JDLI become ever more abundant, making participants feel like they're not being heard or that their views are not being fairly considered, which can further erode their confidence in the results.
  • Statements that any undesirable outcome will go to MR wind up scaring away potential closers.
  • The very purpose of RMs is undermined: why solicit feedback if there's only one valid view?

That last point is worth reiterating, since I've seen repeated suggestions that the RMs must close per NCROY regardless of any and all objections — and worse, that anyone who suggests otherwise is being disruptive. If that's so, then RMs are pointless and should be abolished entirely, and guidelines applied automatically to every article title via undiscussed moves. If it's not, then we need better recognition that there can be multiple valid views regarding how to interpret and apply our policies and guidelines.

I'll also offer a gentle suggestion: if a change to any guideline stirs extremely divided and contentious responses whenever editors seek to apply it, then it might be worth taking that as a sign that the guideline itself should be revisited and improved. As others have rightly noted, more editors have participated in these RMs than in the RfC that changed the guideline, and I don't think their views should count for nothing. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Compassionate727

I find my thoughts on this matter proceeding in a similar manner to Robert McClenon's. My first reaction upon seeing this late last night was that this is surely premature: this is a content dispute with no egregious conduct problems that I can recall. Many people are very unhappy about a relatively minor titling matter and the repeated litigation surrounding it is becoming a nuisance, but what's new? We're here because we enjoy sinking hundreds and thousands of hours into building a quality encyclopedia in one of the most exposed corners of the Internet; I think that makes all of us at least a little bit more obsessive and neurotic than the average person. Stuff like this is bound to happen (and does, regularly) and generally doesn't matter all that much, relatively speaking.

Having said that: the more I think about it, the more amenable I find myself to ArbCom doing… something. Guerillero is correct in his observation that many people who are aware of the global consensus have been attempting, in many cases explicitly, to oppose its implementation locally ([3][4][5][6][7]) rather than to amend the guideline. This has become quite noxious. Several related RM discussions have been listed at closure requests for months, suggesting that experienced closers are weary of dealing with them. I myself closed two of them, and partly through my own carelessness and partly because of this drama, both were challenged; I have little appetite to involve myself further.

I don't pay much attention to the world of contentious topics, but I understand situations like this to be what they are for. I know that AN can authorize contentious topics and deal with conduct disputes, but I don't anticipate AN being adequate here. AN is good for cases that are sufficiently simple or egregious to gather a critical mass of interest; I think the problems here are too subtle, and that either ArbCom will need to deal with them or the community will need to utterly exhaust itself of this business. The latter is probably actually possible in this case, but I doubt this should be considered preferable. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many assert that WP:NCROY does not truly have support. Perhaps, but those who dislike it have been told many times to seek amendments. I don't understand why they haven't. Fear that a new RfC would result in stronger support? It's more effective to wage many small battles? Nobody wants to expend the effort? Regardless, until they demonstrate a lack of support in a new RfC, the speculation is frivolous. Editors should generally follow guidelines; there may be unanticipated situations where they shouldn't apply, but editors should show why these pages are exceptions, not opposition to the broad prescription. This attempt to de facto downgrade the area's guideline because it is disliked is disruptive. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I know I've exceeded my word limit, but could ArbCom comment on the extent to which the existing MOS CTOP applies to this matter? The motion defines the scope as discussions about the policies and guidelines, which would seem to me to include these RMs, insofar as many of them mostly just relitigate the NCROY RfC, but RM discussions are also specifically excluded. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Born2cycle

Statement by Deb

My main concern is that controversial discussions are repeatedly being closed by non-admins, contrary to the guidelines. There is no incentive for contributors to try to join the discussion in a constructive way, since absolutely anyone is being allowed to close them against consensus, giving the excuse that "this set of arguments is better than the other" or "I'm only ensuring that the guidelines are followed", as though only one guideline has any weight. Given the huge range of different points raised on both sides during the discussion, I've been quite shocked at how so many people are simply accepting this as a justification. Deb (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment moved, originally made in reply to Jessintime.
Jessintime seems to feel it's okay for anyone to close any discussion, despite the advice to non-admins not to close controversial discussions. Contrary to Jessintime's view, the fact that such closes are being upheld on the strength of comments from other non-admins "proves" absolutely nothing and simply aggravates the problem. Deb (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Walrasiad

I was tagged in by a notice. I'm not quite sure what this is, never having participated in "arbitration" event before, and not sure what is being asked.

It seems evident that there are inconsistencies and incompatibilities between Wikipedia policies and the recently-changed NCROY guideline. So the relative weight given to them in closures of RMs are natural points of contention. Walrasiad (talk) 02:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little confused. @HouseBlaster just posted on a note on my talk page designating this a "contentious topic". Is this an outcome of this discussion? Walrasiad (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseBlaster Thanks for the clarification. I know article titles are contentious - I participate in many RMs. But forgive me if your note feels discomforting, if not a bit intimidating. I have never edited any article titling or MOS pages, as your notice suggests. Is there a reason you're singling me out for that note? Walrasiad (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseBlaster Thank you. As mentioned, I have no experience with "Arbitration Committees", or the procedures or purpose here. Indeed, despite being on Wikipedia for a long time, I have very little experience or familiarity with administrative machinery. So forgive me if I am suddenly a bit wary.
To be honest, I am a little uncertain what the purpose of this is. Since the topic seems to be conduct, rather than content, let me add this as my concern.
Since the recent RfC on the NCROY guideline page has been the cause of all these problems, and closers in MRs recommended revisiting it, I proposed re-opening the RfC at the WT:NCROY talkpage a little while back. I don't have much experience with RfCs, so I was hoping for suggestions on where and how to frame it. The suggestion there was that rather than launch into immediately, there should be a pre-RfC discussion, so we could clarify what the issues arising were and the choice of venue should ensure wider participation. Given the policy concerns and overwhelming rejection in individual RMs, it seems to me that revising the guidelines would be the natural resolution.
However, @AndrewPeterT stated categorically then that he "Oppose further discussion of this matter" diff, i.e. that the guidelines shouldn't be revisited, and we all should just shut up and accept it. Naturally, I disagreed.
So when this arbitration thing was opened by the same editor (AndrewPeterT), it felt naturally worrisome. He had rejected further discussion on the guidelines page, is he now is turning to administrative machinery to silence discussion in RMs too? Your notice added on top of the worry.
The intention may not be to intimidate into silence, but it sure feels like it. Walrasiad (talk) 04:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HouseBlaster

I probably should be listed as a proposed party, as I initiated both the Nicholas II and Edward IV/Edward V RMs.

I think this filing is premature. There have been many content discussions on this matter, but I have not seen many conduct discussions on this matter. There is a problem, but I don't think we are at the point where this an ArbCom problem. I think a referral to AN—as unappealing as that sounds—is the next thing to try here. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Thryduulf: venue is everything. In this case, you can't change guidelines at a specific article's talk page, no matter how many people show up to the discussion. (Of course, editors might raise a reason to IAR specific to that page at a talk page, with the caveat you laid out at Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is for uncommon situations.) If the editors wish to change the guideline, WT:NCROY is the place to do that. Not (e.g.) Talk:Edward V.

    If ArbCom does not take this case—which I still believe is the best course of action, even if I completely understand why people would think otherwise—I do think a statement saying (essentially) go to AN and/or WT:NCROY, but if there are further problems go directly to ARC (do not pass go, do not collect $200) would be helpful. As others have said, there is a problem of a type which historically ends up at ArbCom, but I think the non-ArbCom community should at least try to solve it first. And I think we have a better chance at coming up with a solution if we know ArbCom is the alternative. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Walrasiad: article titles are already a Contentious Topic, and had been designated as such in 2012. The alert is just a reminder/notice that historically article titles have been a problem, so admins have broad authority to do stuff (e.g. impose topic bans) to make sure it does not become a dramafest. (I am absolutely not saying you should be topic banned, but I do think everyone—myself included—could do with a reminder that article titling has historically been an area of contention.) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Walrasiad: I apologize that the note felt discomforting—that was certainly not my intention. I did notify other people (1, 2, 3, 4) at the same time; my goal was to make sure all of the NCROY-related dispute "regulars" were informed of the official CTOP designation. (I probably missed a few people, but I did try to get everyone.) The CTOP designation for article titles includes the MOS; it is currently impossible to notify someone of the article titling CTOP without notifying them of the MOS CTOP. I have filed an amendment requesting the CTOP designation be split so that article titles and the MOS are considered separate CTOPs. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon (Royalty Naming)

This is a very poorly stated, rambling Request for Arbitration, but there may actually be a valid issue for the ArbCom to answer. My first thought was that maybe the ArbCom ought to warn the filing editor, or ought to consider whether to impose sanctions for frivolous litigation or vexatious litigation. My first thought was mistaken. The filing editor does have a valid question. The question is: Should the naming of articles on royalty be designated as a contentious topic? The filing editor lists a very large number of Requested Moves involving royalty. Maybe most of these requests are tendentious. If so, the contentious topic procedure should be used to topic-ban editors from troublesome requested moves. Alternatively, some other sort of disruptive editing may be interfering with the resolution of these naming discussions.

There is an issue for ArbCom to consider, which is whether the naming of articles on royalty is a contentious topic. ArbCom should open either a case or a discussion. The filing editor has identified a problem that ArbCom should address. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-Up Comment

User:HouseBlaster raises an interesting point, which is that the community has had (too) many content discussions concerning the naming of articles on royalty, but has not attempted to discuss the conduct issues that cause the content issues to be discussed repetitively. This raises the question of whether ArbCom can impose contentious topic rules before the community tries to deal with conduct. It also raises the related question of whether the community can define a contentious topic that can be dealt with in the same way as an ArbCom-defined contentious topic. I have seen the second question discussed, and do not recall seeing the second question answered. Can the community establish a contentious topic?

If the community can establish that royalty names are a contentious topic, then I mostly agree with HouseBlaster. If so, a two-part dispute can be sent to the community at WP:AN. The first part is that, if anyone wants to contest the closure of the autumn RFC, they can do so at WP:AN, which will probably confirm it. The second part is that the community can deal with the conduct issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article Titles Disputes

The Article Titles and Capitalization decision states:

The scope of this remedy refers to discussions about the policies and guidelines mentioned, and does not extend to individual move requests, move reviews, article talk pages, or other venues at which individual article names may be discussed. Disruption in those areas should be handled by normal administrative means.

This Request for Arbitration concerns an excessive number of Requests for Moves and Move Reviews. This is, at this time, a case where disruption must be dealt with by normal administrative means. So if ArbCom declines this case, then, as HouseBlaster and others have said, this case should go to WP:AN, and the community should impose sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If ArbCom accepts this case, as appears to be unlikely, I request permission for an additional 250 words.

Statement by Crouch, Swale

The consensus at the autumn RFC is quite clear and as noted it brings the guideline inline with most other titles of being concise unless disambiguation is needed. Yes I understand the change in the guideline is controversial but given as noted it brings it inline with the general titling policy thus I don't think the change can be said to be controversial enough to ignore it in RMs especially when there isn't an overwhelming majority or !votes against it, see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Disclosure; I did not participate in the autumn RFC but I have participated in some of the recent RMs and MRs. I can be added as a party if people want to add me. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jessintime

@Primefac: the issue isn't that people are starting a bunch of move requests. The problem is that certain editors are using those move requests (and move reviews) to re-argue a previously decided request for comment. (I think I've participated in some of these discussions, so that might make me involved FWIW). ~~ Jessintime (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the statement below that "The first step to settling the content aspect here should be to assess whether the consensus of commenters in the NCROY RFC matches the consensus of the community at large" I would note the RFC had two dozen participants in it. That is more participants than any of the requested moves that have taken place since then. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Deb: WP:RMNAC is clear that "Experienced and uninvolved registered editors in good standing are encouraged to close requested move discussions." And the fact that such closes are being upheld at WP:MR is proof that the guidelines (WP:NCROY) are in fact being followed. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to keep responding, but that link [8] deals with the deletion process (it's literally in the title). Requested moves are not a deletion process. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TimothyBlue:. While many opponents of the moves have made allusions to COMMONNAME, I find that few if any have actually bothered to back up that claim. Asserting something does not make it so without evidence. And WP:CONCISE is also part of our article titling criteria. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

I closed the RM noted as anticipating a move review, based on multiple other move reviews being initiated when the close didn't go the way one or other side wanted. It's clear to me that there are conduct issues, I had cause to single out Born2Cycle as the worst but far from only offender in that RM for example. Multiple of the other parties are familiar from other page titling disputes too, which have failed to be resolved at AN(I), so I strongly suspect there will be an arbitration case around the topic of page titles and/or other manual of style issues at some point but I don't think this specific dispute is the right framing for that. The first step to settling the content aspect here should be to assess whether the consensus of commenters in the NCROY RFC matches the consensus of the community at large, and if not what to do about that. Those are not questions for arbcom. Thryduulf (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jessintime My comment was not presupposing the outcome of the assessment either way - and you should not be attempting to do that either. It's worth noting that numbers are not everything - if (I've not looked) the contentious RFCs are largely different people to each other that's very different to the same people repeatedly re-litigating the RFC in multiple venues. Thryduulf (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After leaving that comment I got curious. There were by my count 22 unique editors who left substantive comments in the RFC. In the first post-RFC requested move listed in the case request 30 unique editors left unique comments (only 8 of whom participated in the RFC). Over the first 5 post-RFC RMs listed above, there were 59 unique editors who left substantive comments - 47 who did not participate in the RFC and 12 who did. Of the 47, only 14 participated in more than 1 of the 5 RMs, 6 of the 12 participated in more than one of the RMs. Based on this assessment, I don't think Guerillero's characterisation is accurate. Thryduulf (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should probably stress that in all the above figures I have made no distinction between those supporting or opposing the guideline and/or its applicability to a given article and both views have been expressed by those commenting on one or more RMs but not the RFC. At least one editor has supported moving one article to the title suggested by NCROY and opposed it in relation to another. Thryduulf (talk) 12:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseBlaster: Indeed, the guideline cannot be changed at individual RMs, regardless of numbers, but they are an illustration that Jessintime's point is incorrect and the RFC is not necessarily as representative as they imply. Your mention of WP:IARUNCOMMON is apt though - so many people (apparently independently) arguing that given pages are exceptions to the rule is a strong indication that it is perhaps the rule rather than them that is wrong. Thryduulf (talk) 10:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AirshipJungleman29

I believe Guerillero's comment is insightful. Looking at the poor opening statement of the case filer, one might hastily conclude that this is all bark and no bite, but there have been serious underlying issues of poor conduct in this topic area; most notably, as Jessintime notes, relitigation policy discussions for discussions on articles subject to the policy has been extremely common. If ArbCom choose to decline this case as premature, I would be shocked if it didn't make its way back after months of wasting time with noticeboards and talk pages and deletion/move/administrative action reviews. If there is a chance we will end with one of those contentious topics whose necessity will be bewildering in a decade's time, better now than in a year's time. I would prefer not to drive away valuable editors because of an increasingly toxic part of the project. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough ToBeFree, it just seems like a contradiction of WP:NOTBURO to wait until we inevitably circle back here in a year's time, with once-productive editors now hostile to each other or even gone from the project entirely. But I can see your point, and if ArbCom has to act that way without exception, then it must decline this case. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Daniel Quinlan

I'm in general agreement with Thryduulf. Opening a case on this topic seems premature. The current implementation of WP:NCROY is unfortunately too open to personal interpretation and too vague to implement. Expecting everyone to come to the same exact conclusions with such an unclear guideline is unrealistic. It also seems like it may be unrepresentative of community consensus given the results in so many RMs. Designating the area as a contentious topic would not solve those fundamental problems. What is needed is a broader and more rigorous attempt to find and define consensus. Enforcing contentious topics procedures for this topic area would be exceedingly difficult given the current state of consensus and the guideline. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by wbm1058

In a 2012 case, "Article titles and capitalisation", the Arbitration Committee warned Born2cycle that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors. Born2cycle (block log) was indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing in March 2018 per this. I unblocked him after nearly 3 months had passed: a nearly 3-month first block is of sufficient duration, and is well beyond the norm for a first block for tendentious editing, and have been generally pleased at his improved behavior since, but am concerned that he is relapsing. HERE, on February 14, I see another editor expressing concern about tendentious comments in an RM discussion. In the currently longest running RM, open a whopping 116 days and counting, I see two "Notes to closer", the second one pointing to two other discussions, one of which was endorsed, and one of which was overturned – both in favor of the naming convention that B2C supports. I read this as a not-too-subtle threat that any close that doesn't go his way will be taken to move review. A quick glance at that discussion, where the request has plenty of opposition, gives me the initial impression that it should close as no consensus, which would result in the page title remaining the same. But any potential closing administrator should realize that the next step will be another tendentious discussion at "move review", where the closing admin risks the embarrassment of watching their close get overturned. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by QEDK

I don't think this warrants a case yet, in particular the proposer has failed to show a case where the community has repeatedly failed to arrive at a conclusion w.r.t. the conduct of the users involved. Generally agree with what @Thryduulf: said. --qedk (t 愛 c) 13:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by BilledMammal

The answer to this seems simple; open a new RfC proposing to revert the November 2023 change at the Village Pump. Then, ping the participants from the recent RfC as well as all the recent RM's, and list it at WP:CENT.

Either way, this should solve the dispute; if there is a consensus to do so then the editors arguing that the RfC was not reflective of community consensus will be vindicated, and the dispute should quietly disappear. If, however, there is not a consensus to do so, then those arguments will be disproven; the editors who are arguing against this changes will hopefully accept that, but if they don't then we, or ArbCom, can impose sanctions for attempting to enforce a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.

I am willing to open this as a mostly uninvolved editor (I believe I have participated in a few of the recent move reviews), although I would want to wait for ArbCom to decide whether they will reject or accept this case before doing so.

In the meantime, I have opened a discussion for drafting the proposed text for this RfC. BilledMammal (talk) 05:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SilverLocust

RMs for royalty/nobility are among the longest and most controversial. At the time that this request was opened, the 7 oldest RMs (out of 244 RMs total, and 81 with relists) were (permalink):

  1. 👑 Frederik IX of Denmark → Frederik IX (115 days)
  2. 👑 Pharnavaz I of Iberia → Pharnavaz I (93)
  3. ☒N Genital modification and mutilation → Genital modification (73)
  4. 👑 Charles I, Cardinal de Bourbon → Charles I de Bourbon (archbishop of Rouen) (68)
  5. ☒N Afrophobia → Anti-black sentiment (66)
  6. 👑 Alexander, Prince of Schaumburg-Lippe → Alexander zu Schaumburg-Lippe (60)
  7. 👑 Francis, Duke of Guise → François, Duke of Guise (57)

(When comparing duration of these RMs with some requested merges, keep in mind that the backlog for merges is much longer. There are currently 2128 articles to be merged, with the oldest ones being from August, and 615 are older than January (and thus older than all RMs).) SilverLocust 💬 10:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by North8000

I think that what the filer (and maybe others) want(s) is for Arbcom to help on the content-ish dispute. Arbcom really doesn't handle such things. The most you might get here is dealing with any conduct issues and maybe designating it as a contentious topic. North8000 (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, in general contentious topics in Wikipedia are one fueled by there being a real world conflict where folks figure that they can further their real world side by how the Wikipedia article reads. IMO this is not one of those.North8000 (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ModernDayTrilobite

In their section above, BilledMammal has suggested that a new RFC be started to give some additional attention to NCROY. (They've also opened a VPI thread to get that particular ball rolling.) This is exactly the right step forward, in my view.

I think an ArbCom case would be premature at this time: as the arbs who've commented thus far have noted, the community at large has not yet made a thorough attempt to solve the issue. A new, well-attended RFC would be that attempt; let's let the VP and RFC process play out for now. If that proves unable to restore order to the topic area, it would be a much clearer indication that ArbCom intervention is necessary, but for now I find it likely that a well-run RFC will be able to resolve the matter purely through community organs. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Soni

I will note that I recently closed Frederik IX's requested move and was immediately hit with a warning. Reading which closes listed did/didn't go through Review seems to be indicative; RMs that do not go a certain way are always re-litigated with another parent (but not the opposite, NAC or not).

The pressure involved is also quite tautological. From TimothyBlue's request at my talk, it seems that everything is contentiousness if a few editors so declare it. And so the community consensus should now be decided at Arbcom(?). It does feel odd to see requests to not 'waste the community's time' on an RM that is not closed for 4 months without any indication for why the close is incorrect.

Having slept on it, I do not object to another admin redoing my close. But the discussion as a whole clearly follows a pattern, the process is invoked only when convenient. Bureaucracy should not be weaponised. This is clearly a behavioural problem to discuss, whether with Arbcom or the community. Soni (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DeCausa

Looks like this will be declined, and I understand why. However, looking how this is panning out, it's going to be back here without a doubt in a short while having tormented the community and various notice boards in the interim. I think there's a material WP:NOTBURO argument for the committee doing the community a service and taking it now. Frederick IX RM is a good example of why. Multiply that behaviour (both sides) by I don't know how many times for each RM and that's a problem. (Disclosure: I favoured the removing of the geographical designation in the RfC 6 months ago and posted 2 or 3 times on it. I've vaguely changed my mind since then but haven't cared enough to post again in any subsequent RfC or RM.) DeCausa (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EggRoll97

I remember closing an RM with some relation to NCROY (not one listed here, but one regarding the same type of titling disputes), and frankly it ended up as the biggest toxic mess I could ever imagine. The closure was taken to move review and quickly endorsed, and yet that experience has generally dissuaded me from trying my hand at closing any other NCROY-type RMs, because the amount of pile-on given when anyone closes a discussion is tremendous. I think "deciding how NCROY applies", etcetera, is not generally within ArbCom's mandate, but the horrific environment that seems to unfold at every one of these RMs certainly is something that ArbCom should address. EggRoll97 (talk) 04:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JPxG

Tiresome. jp×g🗯️ 08:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/6/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Just noting for the record that I closed the first RM listed, but I do not see that as enough to merit any sort of recusal. Primefac (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Decline per Barkeep49. Primefac (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a thought, 15 RMs started by 10 different users across at least as many pages does not strike me as particularly tendentious or intentionally disruptive. Primefac (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Robert McClenon, regarding your latest comment: see WP:GS. Primefac (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absent further evidence from the community, I'm inclined to decline this request largely for the reasons that House Blaster lays out. The conduct part of this hasn't gone through the community channels yet which would make ArbCom intervention premature at this time. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Decline for the reason above. However, "multi-editor dispute with good faith but potentially bad actions on both sides" is something that ends up at ArbCom because our processes often produce better results for this kind of dispute. So while this is not yet ready for ArbCom, in my opinion, I'm also not saying there needs to be years of community attempts to resolve conduct issues before it would be appropriate for ArbCom. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the concerns of those who are pointing to the discussions that seemingly no one wants to close. I share that concern. But for me some non-trivial amount of that reflects our hallowing out of project capacity in general rather than signaling some problem that needs ArbCom intervention, especially since I don't think this has done the things to really draw community attention beyond listing at WP:CR. In fact looking at CR shows that the oldest unclosed discussion is "only" the fourth oldest discussion in its category (3 merge requests are older). Barkeep49 (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Re:the non-admin closing of Frederck, non-admins can be qualified to close a large number of discussions. WP:RMNAC goes to some length to say non-admins may close requested moves concluding with the thought While non-admins should be cautious (as indeed all move closers should be) when closing discussions where significant contentious debate among participants is unresolved, any experienced and uninvolved editor in good standing may close any RM debate. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am open to a case here. Trying to LOCALCONSENSUS your way out of a larger RFC can be extremely disruptive. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The MOS and the article titles policy are currently a contentious topic due to ARBATC. At the same time, the community was able to deal with NSPORTS2022 and its fallout without a case, but that took closers who wanted to close AfDs. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline at this time, only because the community should have an opportunity to address these issues before ArbCom accepts a case. While there have been a few noticeboard discussions within the scope of this issue, none appear to have substantively addressed the conduct issues. - Aoidh (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sympathetic to the "This will return to ArbCom sooner or later"-like argument provided by AirshipJungleman29. But that fear alone isn't sufficient; ArbCom's scope to act as a final binding decision-maker is limited to disputes the community has been unable to resolve, not those we fear it might be unable to resolve if allowed to. I'm thus not likely to accept even if I fully shared that concern. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also sympathetic to Guerillero's view, but I am landing at: this isn't ripe for arbitration today but if there continues to be conduct issues in this area I can see that changing without the need for exhaustive prior dispute resolution. Decline on that basis. firefly ( t · c ) 19:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For an arbitration case to be useful, it needs to have a well-defined scope and parties, and some sense of goals for the case (obviously, something more specific than resolving the dispute). At this point the scope would be clear enough—move discussions that involve naming conventions for royalty and nobility are at least a contentious issue in the small-c sense of contentious. If there were more substantial attempts at prior resolution, we would have a better sense of who the parties are; inviting evidence on anyone who has participated in a relevant RM would not make for an organized case. If we knew how attempts at prior resolution failed, we would have some sense of how the Committee would be well-placed to help. I'm leaning to decline the case, but I'm more open to one if we can identify a clear scope, parties, what previous attempts at resolution and failed and why, and how ArbCom involvement would be useful (we're not going to dictate which title is "correct" as that is a content decision). Maxim (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline, for now. There's a possibility this will be punted back to us in a couple months, but I would like the community to try to resolve this issue first. I am also in agreement with most of Maxim's statement above: there's a clear scope, but the lack of attempt to resolve this in other forums makes it difficult to determine who the parties of the case are, and what conduct might be causing disruption. Z1720 (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline as premature. Cabayi (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=1224467417"