Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case opened on 00:13, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Shortcut
Main case page (talk) — Preliminary statements — Evidence (talk) — Workshop (talk) — Proposed decision (talk)

Case clerks: HouseBlaster (talk) & MJL (talk) Drafting arbitrators: Primefac (talk) & ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) & Daniel (talk)

Case closed on 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

Case information

Involved parties

Prior dispute resolution

is the recent WP:ANI thread

Move Review cases:

Preliminary statements

Preliminary statements given in the case request stage may be found at /Preliminary statements.

Preliminary decision

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • I'll recuse from clerking this based on participation in some of these (and related) discussions. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 00:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
  • @Robert McClenon: 250 word extension granted. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
  • @Dicklyon: please remember to keep statements focused on whether or not the Arbitration Committee should accept this case; I have hatted part of your comment which does not do so. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
    Dicklyon, I would also note that you have twice now removed the {{ACWordStatus}} template at the top of your section; please make sure you do not do so a third time. Primefac (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <7/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Have there been any attempts by the community to address Cinderella157's alleged behavioral issues? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is a place where a group of adult humans believes they need a central arbitration committee to find a peaceful answer to whether the title of some articles should be capitalized or not. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
    DeCausa, is it a content dispute now? I'm not saying this doesn't need administrative intervention, I'm just saying it shouldn't need arbitration. And if administration fails at a level of "we can't deal with people fighting about the capitalization of article titles", I personally fail to take the project seriously in this aspect. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
  • This is hardly the first instance where a general policy is being used to override local consensus--and creating serious friction between local and general editors in the process. But if anything, that points to policy reform as the solution, not ArbCom intervention. I'm more than happy to extend the MOS CT to RMs by motion, and could even be convinced to tban Cinderella by motion if that would help put the issue to bed. But a full ArbCom case because some people are angry that some words are Slightly Bigger than others? That would surely go down as one of the Lamest ArbCom Cases of All Time, and I am very skeptical about accepting. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks Sarek, I didn't realize we had heard a case about capitalization, with Dickylon as a party no less. I guess would make this case Capitalization II. How lame. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
    I think you mean CapitaIIs. this joke doesn't work as well in a sans serif font. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
    Accept The community wants us to take this issue. The various motions below suggest a more comprehensive solution is warranted, and I think evidence and workshopping would help make said solution robust. There are also several editors besides Dickylon whom we could examine; I am hesitant to relitigate Dickylon's case though and am open to ideas on how to ensure this doesn't become focused on him. I still think this case will be very LAME, and that the ultimate issue is a content decision, but folks are treating it like some sort of holy struggle, which makes it equivalent to the setup of the infobox wars case. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
  • I'm thinking there are conduct issues here, but ArbCom can't solve the underlying problem, which is a philosophical dispute over whether we should follow a prescrptive guideline (which is normal in many publications but Wikipedia has tended towards a slower evolution of descriptive guidelines in most areas) or treat the guidelines as suggestions and allow editors or groups of editors leeway. That is an inherent conflict in the wiki model and not one that ArbCom can make go away. That's not to say that we can't look at the conduct issues but it's important to manage expectations from the beginning. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:12, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
    Accept. The motions are fine as far as they go, and I expect to support them, but I don't think they will do much to resolve the ill will and the feeling that one side isn't playing fair or playing by the rules which permeates every discussion related to capitalisation in article titles. I don't think we can kick the can down the road—there has already been one case about this issue and not only has the issue not gone away but it's festered and we're back here with several of the same participants. ArbCom is the best-positioned of our processes to evaluate long-term patterns of editor conduct and attempt to get to the bottom of the accusations and counter-accusations.

    I would still caution all those wanting a resolution, though, that ArbCom can't and won't declare one side or the other "right" or "wrong". We won't rule the MoS null and void, nor will we decree that all articles must follow a particular title format. But if editors are subverting consensus or bludgeoning the process (for example), that is something we can deal with. And in reply to Kevin specifically, ArbCom-mandated RfCs don't have a great track record but we can try and provide tools to keep the discussion on track. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:16, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  • My first quick reading Robert McClenon is that an ANI has just concluded in which Dicklyon (talk · contribs) was sanctioned and Cinderella157 (talk · contribs) was not and you'd like us to re-do the ANI 'til we come to an outcome you prefer. Am I missing something? Something that was not considered at the ANI? If it wasn't, why? Cabayi (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
  • I'm of a mind to accept this issue, although I'm not settled just yet. The issue here is even if the topic is a CTOP, we're still asking AE to handle a long running dispute where some of the involved parties are long-term editors with significant social capital. AE has proven to be not-so-great at handled disputes with such editors in the past. It also, again, puts the committee in the position of handing off a complex case with quite a few parties back to a venue with fewer participants than the committee has. I've added the word limit remedies from ARBPIA below, as I think those would probably help out in this topic. I also think the committee should add the first impose word limits on all participants in a discussion, or on individual editors across all discussions to the standard CTOP enforcement tools. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
    Accept, and the word count tool Kevin is putting together works great so far. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
    Robert McClenon, as you said, the case is already going to be accepted so there's no reason to further expand statements at the case request. Your request for more words is declined. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Accept - Aoidh (talk) 10:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
  • The proposed drafters are currently ironing out the specifics of the case, including the list of named parties. @Dicklyon: you mentioned that User:Andy Dingley, User:oknazevad, User:SnowFire, and User:Thryduulf have made unsupported behavioral allegations against me, and have been involved for a long time in the underlying content dispute over capitalization. Could you provide some diffs or links to discussions showing their involvement, especially as it relates to this case request (conduct issues in capitalization disputes)? As you're right at the 500 word limit, you may have an additional 200 words to respond. - Aoidh (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Accept. My preference as noted below was to try and implement some editing restrictions and bludgeoning restrictions by motion, and give AE a chance to clean this up first; if that didn't work, I'd have been keen to accept a case on the basis that "everything has been tried". Developments in the past few days have seen my colleagues leaning towards accepting the case, and therefore I'll remove my support for two of the three preliminary motions in favour of joining them and assessing this as a full case, where that and other remedies can be considered in full. Daniel (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
  • I am, somewhat hesitantly, in support of accepting this case request; I went to vote on what I thought was a singular motion and found three, and if we are at the point where multiple motions are possible we should probably take the time to actually look at the underlying causes (especially if some of them could have broader CTOP-wide implications). I do have some of the concerns expressed above about there being intractable issues that simply cannot be overcome, though. Primefac (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Accept. I think ArbCom has something to say about how CTOP in topics like this: most admins know about CTOPs in topics areas like WP:PIA, WP:IPA and WP:R-I, but I think there are some lesser known CTOPs that we might need to address what to do about them. Also, if several admins and editors say that a case is helpful, I'm inclined to agree with them. I'll wait until the outcome of this case request is resolved before commenting on motions below, as the motions are moot if this is opened. Z1720 (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Accept reluctantly, with the expectation that ArbCom does conduct, not content, consequently that this will lead to sanctions on those unwilling to abide by consensus or playing IDHT, not that we'll say great things about capitalisation. Cabayi (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Motion: Replace CTOP designation

More information Replaced with a clearer wording. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC), Abstentions ...
Close
More information Closing as no motion(s) achieved a majority, and the case is in the final stages of being prepared to open. Daniel (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC), Abstentions ...
Close

Final decision

All tallies are based on the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.


Principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors.

Passed 11 to 0 at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Role of the Arbitration Committee

2) The role of the Arbitration Committee is to act as a final binding decision-maker for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. Content areas the Committee has previously ruled on are sometimes designated as contentious topics or subject to ongoing special restrictions. As necessary, the Committee may revisit previous decisions and associated enforcement systems in order to review their effectiveness or necessity.

Passed 11 to 0 at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Discussion of content

3) Wikipedia relies on a consensus model. Finding common ground is essential when editors disagree, and editors should be willing and able to actively do so. Editors' participation in discussions should not simply be reiterating their own positions. Editors' own positions should be represented concisely to allow room in the discussion for consensus to develop.

Passed 11 to 0 at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Bludgeoning

4) In formal discussions, less is usually more. Editors who choose to ignore this advice by replying to a large number of comments can bludgeon the discussion. Bludgeoning exhausts other editors, dissuades further participation, wastes time, and makes discussions less effective. Editors should avoid repeating the same point or making so many comments that they dominate the discussion. Editors should particularly avoid trying to convince specific other people that they are right and the other person is wrong, and should instead focus on presenting their own ideas as clearly and concisely as possible.

Passed 11 to 0 at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Editor time is our most valuable resource

Shortcuts

5) Wikipedia relies on the input of volunteer editors to maintain and produce its content, including managing its dispute mechanisms. The time editors can commit to this is one of its most precious resources. This resource should not be wasted pointlessly.

Passed 11 to 0 at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Maintaining perspective

6) Highly tendentious disputes over objectively minor issues hurt the Wikipedia project. They hurt the project by reducing editor co-operation, and can drive editors away from working in the areas of the encyclopedia in which they occur. The fact that something may contradict Wikipedia policies or guidelines is not enough to justify disruption that exceeds the harm caused by the underlying issue. Editors are expected to maintain proper perspective about the issues under discussion, and act to further the greater good of the encyclopedia.

Passed 9 to 2 at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Locus of the dispute

1) This case relates to conduct issues occurring in both editing of articles and discussions relating to article titles and capitalisation. This area was the subject of a previous arbitration case, Article titles and capitalisation, in 2012.

Passed 11 to 0 at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Contentious topic designation

2) Article titles and capitalisation designated "all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed" as a contentious topic. The scope of this contentious topic was limited, and explicitly excluded 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.

Passed 11 to 0 at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Disruption adjacent to the contentious topic designation

3) There has been extensive disruption, bludgeoning and battleground conduct in the editing of individual articles and in discussions adjacent to the contentious topic area. This included venues such as individual move requests, move reviews, article talk pages, and other venues at which individual article names were discussed. However, due to the explicit exclusion of these discussions from the scope of the CT area, the contentious topic restrictions were unable to be used to prevent the ongoing disruption, and normal administrative means proved largely ineffective.

Passed 10 to 0 at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Cinderella157

4) Cinderella157 has engaged in bludgeoning discussions (Robert McClenon's evidence, Jessintime's evidence), personalises, assumes bad faith about, and disruptively challenges move request closures (Jessintime's evidence, FOARP's evidence), and has treated the topic of article capitalisation as a battleground (Robert McClenon's evidence, Jessintime's evidence, FOARP's evidence).

Passed 10 to 0 at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Dicklyon

5) Dicklyon has engaged in bludgeoning (Robert McClenon's evidence, Jessintime's evidence), personalises disputes (asilvering's evidence, Jessintimes' evidence), disruptively challenges move request closures (Robert McClenon's evidence, FOARP's evidence), and engaged in canvassing (asilvering's evidence),

He has treated the topic area as a battleground (Jessintime's evidence, asilvering's evidence), has made moves he was aware were contentious without discussion (Jessintime's evidence, Adumbrativus' evidence), and edited the resulting redirects, making restoration to status quo difficult (SilverLocust's evidence). He has engaged in sockpuppetry to evade an earlier topic ban and violated his current topic ban (Adumbrativus' evidence), has engaged in edit warring (Adumbrativus' evidence, Bagumba's evidence), and refuses to listen or get the point (Dicklyon's evidence and workshop submissions).

Dicklyon was topic banned from [c]hanging the capitalization of any phrase in the encyclopedia, [m]oving or renaming any page or subpage in the encyclopedia, [and] [t]aking part in any discussion about capitalization, broadly construed, in the encyclopedia by the community in July 2025.

Passed 10 to 0 at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

6) Hey man im josh has engaged in edit warring (Adumbrativus' evidence, Bagumba's evidence).

Passed 10 to 0 at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

SMcCandlish

7) SMcCandlish has engaged in bludgeoning discussions (Jessintimes's evidence), assumes bad faith about and disruptively challenges move request closures (Jessintime's evidence, FOARP's evidence), and has engaged in battleground editing (SnowFire's evidence, FOARP's evidence, asilvering's evidence). SMcCandlish is under an Arbitration Enforcement civility restriction since March 2013 and was reminded to adhere to the restriction in March 2024 (AE Log).

Passed 10 to 0 at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Manual of Style and article titles contentious topic scope amended

1) The existing Manual of Style and article titles contentious topic is amended, to narrow the scope to only apply to article titles and capitalisation. The contentious topic area is to be renamed "Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Article titles and capitalisation".

The following text will be removed:

Contentious topic restrictions are authorized for all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed. 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 text will be replaced by:

Contentious topic restrictions are authorized for all pages and discussions related to article titles and capitalisation, broadly construed. The scope of this remedy includes:

  • discussions about the policies and guidelines mentioned
  • changing the capitalisation of a phrase when editing a page
  • changing the capitalisation of a page title by moving or renaming a page
  • individual requests for comment, move requests, move reviews, as well as discussions on article talk pages, user talk pages, or other venues, where the discussion directly relates to article titles and/or capitalisation.

All sanctions and warnings previously imposed under the previous scope (Manual of Style and article titles) remain in force. Editors aware of the previous contentious topic designation are not automatically presumed to be aware of the expanded scope, but may still be sanctioned within the subtopic of which they were previously considered aware. This does not invalidate any other reason why an editor might be aware of the expanded scope. Administrators are reminded that they may issue logged warnings even to unaware editors.

Passed 10 to 0 at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Word limit restriction (discretionary) added to contentious topic restrictions standard set

2a) The word limit restriction (discretionary) is added to the standard set of contentious topic restrictions for all contentious topics.

Uninvolved administrators may impose word limits on all participants in a discussion, or on individual editors across all discussions, within a specific contentious topic area. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit. These restrictions must be logged and may be appealed in the same way as all contentious topic restrictions.

Passed 9 to 0 at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Cinderella157 topic banned

4a) Cinderella157 is indefinitely topic banned from the article titles and capitalisation contentious topic area, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 9 to 1 at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Cinderella157 word limit restriction (500 words)

4c) Cinderella157 is limited to 500 words in any discussion related to the article titles and capitalisation contentious topic area, broadly construed.

Passed 7 to 0 with 2 abstentions at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Dicklyon banned

5a) Dicklyon is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 7 to 2 with 1 abstention at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Dicklyon topic banned

5b) The Arbitration Committee assumes the indefinite topic ban of Dicklyon. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 10 to 0 at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Dicklyon topic banned from challenging closes

5c) Dicklyon is indefinitely topic banned from challenging or requesting a review of any closure within the article titles and capitalisation contentious topic area, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 8 to 2 at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Dicklyon word limit restriction (500 words)

5d) Dicklyon is limited to 500 words in any discussion related to the article titles and capitalisation contentious topic area, broadly construed.

Passed 9 to 0 with 1 abstention at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh warned

6) Hey man im josh is warned for edit warring.

Passed 7 to 1 with 2 abstentions at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

SMcCandlish topic banned (titles and capitalization)

7c) SMcCandlish is indefinitely topic banned from the article titles and capitalisation contentious topic area, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 10 to 0 at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

SMcCandlish word limit restriction (500 words)

7e) SMcCandlish is limited to 500 words in any discussion related to the article titles and capitalisation contentious topic area, broadly construed.

Passed 9 to 0 with 1 abstention at 23:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

More information 0) Appeals and modifications ...
Close
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Enforcement log

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI