User:Doncram/Title-warring

About title-warring

This is an unfinished draft response for JsG/Guy's concern in the arbitration request Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Doncram

(Unfinished = not ready for prime time, too long, too petty, and omitting at least one diff (at end) and maybe more.)

Also, I don't want to be argumentative, and discussing the following details seems petty. Please note I did not contest the final decision of the arbitration, and I don't mean now to ask the current arbitrators to reconsider the finding 1.3. I believe it is not too important whether the finding was right or wrong, except perhaps to answer User:JzG/Guy's concern which I suspect is based specifically upon it. This is just a draft--including pettiness--which might answer Jzy/Guy's concern separately.

JzG/Guy suggests a restriction on title-warring is needed: "If the ban is lifted (which seems fair enough given the passage of time without further incident) I would suggest a restriction preventing (a) title-warring or (b) the creation of context-free stubs, which were the main problems before." This addresses a, and not b.

The relevant arbitration finding was: "Move warring": 1.3) Doncram (talk · contribs) has repeatedly attempted to impose his point of view as to the proper title of an article without first seeking consensus in the usual manner.([1], [2], [3], [4])

Passed 11 to 0, 05:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Reasons not a concern

Assuming that Jzy/Guy's concern is based on their reading arbitration finding 1.3, it is understandable, but there are reasons why it should not remain a concern:

1. I don't think there has been any similar incident from 2013 until now, during which there has been no specific restriction on my moving/renaming articles.
2. The four examples were only about NRHP-related new articles that I was developing in mainspace. If I do develop any new NRHP-related articles I am not going to do in the same way.
3. The contention in three cases was with an editor A who was banned from interacting with me in 2013, and that ban continues. The disagreement about article title in the fourth item was from 2011 and is not an example of title-warring. There's no reason to expect similar contention.
4. The arbitrators did not suggest what should have been done differently in any of the cases, and arguably there was no inappropriate title-warring by me at all. "Seeking consensus in the usual manner" presumably is using the wp:RM service, an excellent well-running service, which I have always used when I arrived at an article and thought it should be moved, if I perceived any disagreement was likely. In these four examples, wp:RM should have been used by the other editor as they knew their move would be contended, and yet they went ahead with the move. Charitably calling their first moves "Bold" changes, then my response was "Revert" fully within the wp:BRD process. And I sought discussion where they did not. Perhaps I should have asked for clarification because I do not see what else I should have done, but there were reasons not to ask for clarification (to just let the arbitration finish, and there being no great importance to disputing this even if it was invalid).

Detail about disputes

The following detail about disputes seems quite petty. But I was creating and developing articles, and another editor was following my edits and interrupting with disagreements and was unreasonable, often/usually being unwilling to communicate why they thought some different title or other change was justifiable. I could not get them to stop, and these petty disputes are just where the process of disputing happened to be followed out. If these were not raised up, other disputes would have been created, I expect. In the first and third cases the change in article title didn't amount to much, and the other editor "won", but IMO it was their behavior--unnecessarily forcing a change in the midst of new article development--that was unreasonable, or more unreasonable IMO. Whatever. Another interpretation is that I was provoked, that I responded, and the provoking therefore was proven successful and could and would be continued until the arbitration. At the arbitration an interaction ban was imposed that still stands.

Anyhow, three of the four were where the editor A was closely following me and moved an article that I had created and was developing, interrupting.

• The first-listed was 39 minutes after article created by me. At the Talk page I opened reasonable discussion that the contending editor simply did not ever reply to. As I noted, there would not be much difference between "Charles E. Bell" vs. "C. E. Bell" but only the latter was supported adequately by sources by that point. The contending editor eventually in this diff added an off-line reference which presumably supported the "Charles", but that was after they made 4 moves, my having made 3 moves, and their never answering at Talk.
• In the 2nd-listed the contending editor used admin powers to remove the article to user-space without leaving a redirect, twice, the the first just 65 minutes after article creation, and the second just 3 minutes I returned it to the original name]. I went to the Administrators Noticeboard for discussion, which was arguably doing the right thing to get high-level attention, not something to be blamed for]. I asked the AN for someone to review the administrator's actions, which is in fact going to an appropriate forum for review of admin behavior, I believe. No administator would make the move, perhaps because it was demanded, whether it was right or wrong. I subsequently opened a wp:RM which settled the issue by making the move I requested and that the contending editor opposed.
• In the 3rd example the contending editor [it just 33 minutes after creation] and I moved it back and called for a proper requested move by edit summary "moved ... over redirect: move back to NRHP-listed name of the place. If you wish to rename, open a proper Requested Move request", which did not happen. Some discussion about the move did occur at the Talk page, but only started by another editor and 17 minutes after A's second move. And the discussion was not a wp:RM. The page was moved back and forth, and I "lost" eventually after the other editor self-reporting their warring at 3RR (where there was no consequence imposed IIRC) and their version was protected by another administrator.

In the 4th example, in 2011 and which actually preceded the others,

• • a different editor B moved an article I had created to remove an abbreviation.
  • When I noticed that a couple weeks later, I accepted that and opened a potentially productive Talk page discussion about other concerns (which did proceed productively). My edit at Talk:Architects_of_the_United_States_Forest_Service was at 23:46, 18 July 2011.
  • Just 22 minutes later a different editor C made a major change in name of the article at Revision as of 00:08, 19 July 2011, towards refocusing the article, and timed apparently because they followed my Talk edit. They did not themselves join the Talk first, and they didn't participate at Talk until after it was moved back by me. Call that a Bold move and a Reversion by me.
  • It happens that editor A of the first three examples followed the activity and arrived with an edit 13 hours later, at 13:49, 19 July 2011‎ but they did not move the article.
  • Editor C opened an AFD at 16:09, 19 July 2011‎, arguably the wrong venue because even in the nomination the editor acknowledged there was adequate content available for an article if it were focused/titled differently. Or maybe the venue was okay for disagreement about the notability of the article if kept at its original name. Anyhow the article title was put into discussion there.
  • After AFD discussion proceeded and there was some support for the initial name, I moved the article during the AFD as part of developing the article. Developing an article during an AFD is good. Moving is unusual but is allowed, and certainly this move did not stop the naming discussion going on in the AFD.
  • There was disagreement about the article name, but I don't see move-warring here. The only questionable act was the editor C using AFD as forum when wp:RM could have been more correct. In the end the AFD concluded with the article remaining at the title I had chosen.

Summary

In 2 and 4 the final decision was to leave the title at the article name that I had chosen, in 1 and 3 the decision was to leave it at a name slightly different. Suggesting that I was not all wet, my moves were not unreasonably pushing something pointy. There was indeed disagreement about article title, which is allowed.

The finding that Doncram "has repeatedly attempted to impose his point of view as to the proper title of an article without first seeking consensus in the usual manner" does not seem correct IMHO. I did seek wp:RM discussions and in fact created the only RM that occurred. However the IMO finding would have applied properly to editor B. In fact an arbitrator acknowledged the finding applied to editor B, although no one chose to create that as a finding.

At the time, I considered this finding to be bizarre, out of step with all participants' concerns, which was not about move-warring. Those four cases were used as part of evidence about general behavior, yes, but it seemed to me the arbitrators a) created this finding on their own and b) were technically incorrect. But if I recall correctly it did not seem too important to contest it and I did not. The finding seemed not to matter as move-warring was not specifically addressed in any remedy (perhaps the arbitrators saw this as pretty weak themselves). And even though the finding seemed unfair, I perceived that it served a necessary role for the arbitrators in finishing the case. I can't find the diff immediately, but I specifically recall that in the proposed decision page at one point an arbitrator pointed out to the others that while several proposed "remedies" directed at me were being discussed, there were not findings to support them, and some findings against me must be made. It was either that there were no findings at all or there was only one finding which related to already-old-by-then stuff. And then this finding was manufactured.

Reasons 1-4 above suggest that there should not be a concern now. This was tedious to create. I hope it is helpful.