Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vrsti (talk | contribs) at 08:15, 18 April 2011 (→‎Systematic Removal of Links to One Site). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

    You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Template:Active editnotice


    Need 1 brave uninvolved admin

    See the following thread, "Topic ban proposal concerning the lame "Mexican-American War" hyphen/en-dash dispute". This thread is also closed as part of that incident. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Wait for "Topic ban proposal concerning the lame "Mexican-American War" hyphen/en-dash dispute" to close before doing anything on this. Sven Manguard Wha?
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


    ...to close the very lengthy Request for Move Talk:Battles_of_the_Mexican–American_War#Move.3F. WP:RM is backlogged, nobody has commented in more than 10 days, and it's getting in the middle of this closely related CfD. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (And, when you close, could you clarify if the decision at this RM can be applied to all the related articles that use "Mexican-American War" in the title? Mexican–American War campaigns Battle of Santa Clara (Mexican–American War) List of U.S. Army, Navy and Volunteer units in the Mexican–American War. These moves are going to be contested, and I would rather not be forced to open 3 new RMs, one for each related article, and rehash the exact same arguments. Please assess this if you can.) --Enric Naval (talk) 10:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    There's no reason "Mexican–American War" should be punctuated differently than "Spanish–American War" or any of the many other "X–Y War" articles that follow our MOS conventions. If WP:TITLE is really intended to supplant the MOS, and to say that we need to follow our sources for style and formatting and not just for naming (italics? underlining? curly quotation marks? long S?), then we need to discuss it there and make that policy explicit so we don't have these arguments. — kwami (talk) 11:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Enric Naval's post cries out for comment:
    • The editor is not making a neutral call for closure, but a flagrant call for partisan support. An admin closing this case would do well to attend to the issues raised, and to note the count of supports and opposes.
    • The matter is highly complex, and involves broader issues that are being addressed at WP:TITLE concerning how punctuation (as opposed to the raw choice of name for an article) is settled at WP:MOS; but if the RM were closed in a way consistent with the last closure at Mexican–American_War, the deciding factor would have to be "no consensus for change".
    • Enric Naval, and the other proponents of moving to a form with a hyphen (against the great majority of similar articles that follow WP:MOS and retain their en dash), were invited to consider jointly ALL of the articles with "Mexican~American War" in their title: collegially, in a correctly formed multiple RM. They refused to negotiate. If they now want to parlay a single RM into a multiple one (without proper procedure, and proper advertisement to the community), that is an abuse of the mechanisms of WP:RM.
    NoeticaTea? 11:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I collapsed this. No need to move forward on this while there's a bigger related issue being discussed. The way said issue is going, we'll have a resolution of some kind soon. It can't escalate any further without someone getting {blocked/banned/sent to ArbCom} at this point Sven Manguard Wha? 23:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The proposal below is not serious. The proper action would be to close the RM in one way or other, and then block the @~@#~#@~ out of the people who try to edit war against the closure, per MOS:STABILITY. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, no. You don't like it, therefore you say it isn't serious. That isn't judgment, that's an incredibly immature and transparent way of trying to sway an argument. Also, if we topic ban one person on that list, we should topic ban all six, and that would include you. Be careful what you wish for. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Topic ban proposal concerning the lame "Mexican-American War" hyphen/en-dash dispute

    This entire thing has gotten way out of hand. Continuing the discussion here will feed the bad blood while doing nothing in moving towards a solution. An RfC is needed, in some form, to determine how to deal with the dashes/hyphens in titles issue across the entirety of the project. It should be done soon because this continues to escalate rapidly. While I am not innocent of this myself, it is also worth making a special note that the beheavior here has been rather appalling at times. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    For a while now, several editors have been edit-warring on various pages about whether Mexican-American War should be written with a hyphen (-) or an en dash (–). The pages being edit-warred about include

    The dispute has spilled over into various noticeboard threads (only the still-open ones: AN, AN3) and CfD.

    The issue is entirely too lame (officially!) to waste any time on discussing who exactly bears which degree of blame, let alone who is "right". Simply as a measure to stop these edit-wars and unproductive disputes (and not intended as an accusation of misconduct against any particular editor), I propose that the editors who have recently made punctuation-related reverts to these pages, namely:

    are, for one year and across all pages, topic-banned from the issue of the punctuation in "Mexican-American War", including any related changes to or discussions about policies or guidelines. I also propose that uninvolved administrators may impose the same restriction on any other editor who continues the edit wars mentioned above.  Sandstein  20:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    All named editors notified.  Sandstein  20:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment and Request -- The idea that good faith editors will be banned from anything is probably one of the most problematic things I have yet seen on Wikipedia. Sandstein, if this is the way you feel about things, I don't see how it is productive of you to remain involved. For the most part, I have seen people behaving themselves and being civil. I myself have been largely apolitical in the dash/hyphen dispute, and to see this kind of thing even proposed seems simply wrong. It is arbitrary and without any real guidance, and with the intended goal of stating simply that this is a 'lame' discussion. While I would agree that it isn't the best use of time, I hardly see how your approach is a solution. I would ask you to let a different admin take over here, and ask you to drop this. -- Avanu (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't doubt that all of the people I've named above act in good faith and more or less civilly, but this does not make the edit-warring and the proliferating page protections, noticeboard threads and sanction requests less of a problem. Two involved editors, including you, have asked me to do something on my talk page, and, well, here is my proposal. It may not be very fair in that it treats everybody alike, but it will stop the multi-page edit-warring, which is the main problem (rather than the obscure style and policy disputes) from an admin point of view. If the community doesn't like the proposal, fine. WP:DR has many other options, and all are free to try to apply them.  Sandstein  22:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, this would indeed stop the edit-warring altogether, that's for sure. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it would, but I feel it also directly assaults one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, namely Civility. If we are to be a community edited encyclopedia, sometimes we endure what others might label lame. (And FYI, that was nominated to the Lamest Edit Wars in a spirit of fun, not to belittle people). Strong unilateral actions like what is being proposed by Sandstein above were *NOT* what this editor was seeking when he initially sought out Sandstein's help. Taking things here only shows me, that Sandstein needs to let it drop, and let an admin who is willing to shepherd this issue take over. -- Avanu (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Translation: "I didn't get what I want, so I want someone else to make a decision." Topic-banning (oops should that have been an endash? or an emdash? Perhaps someone can enlighten me) will stop you lot from fighting, thereby upholding the idea of civility. → ROUX ₪ 03:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Proper Translation: First, you need the facts, Roux. And 'Assume Good Faith' is not what you are doing. Second, I asked for Sandstein's help in a *very* minor thing a few days ago, which he quickly remedied, and seems now intent on punishing people instead of helping. It was never about me getting my way, my point of view on the dispute has consistently been one of neutrality and urging the parties toward resolutions. Before you or anyone else jump to conclusions, get the facts. And don't you dare lecture me until you start with those facts. -- Avanu (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Fact: This is a stupid editwar
    Fact: a bunch of people protecting their pet causes are causing much ballyhoo over something monumentally fucking stupid
    Fact: Topicbanning you lot ends all of that
    Everything else is irrelevant window-dressing. → ROUX ₪ 03:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    'stupid', 'pet causes', 'monumentally fucking stupid' - is this the sort of commentary we need to expect from uninvolved editors who are assuming good faith and acting in line with Wikipedia guidelines? If we can't expect civility here on the Administrators' noticeboard, how can we expect a reasonable conclusion? -- Avanu (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a big fan of calling a spade a spade, and not succumbing to mealy-mouthed BS in order to maintain illusions. This debate is stupid. Period. It does precisely nothing to enhance utility for the readers of this encyclopedia. Period. Act stupidly, and you will get commentary calling out that stupidity. Act not-stupidly, and you will see that commentary disappear. Either this is important--which you claim it is not, despite how many times you've commented--in which case I invite you to explain, in one hundred words or less, how this argument does anything to make the encyclopedia better, as opposed to simply wasting time that could be more productively spent elsewhere. → ROUX ₪ 04:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What *is* important in this forum (Administrators' noticeboard) is that there is a fair hearing and a group of editors working toward *solutions* and not simply abusing other editors.
    "lame, stupid, monumentally fucking stupid, monkey business, just shut the fuck up, overly-passionate editors intent on protecting their little fiefdoms, troupe of third-rate clowns and their petty slapstick" (my fellow editor's comments here in Admin noticeboard)
    Is this the kind of stuff you feel we need to behave more like? As I said, I was long a neutral party in the article's discussion and I *NEVER* saw this kind of vitriol or anger directed at each other. You guys are gathered to pass judgement on other editors, and this is the example we get. What am I supposed to say to this? -- Avanu (talk) 04:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Back in the day, people who acted in buffoonish ways were often pilloried for a short while so that the public could mock them and perhaps chuck some overripe fruit at them. I'll put away my mushy tomatoes (and I'm sure others will) if the editors involved would accept the topic ban, serve their time, and go back to productive business. Wriggling around and hollering only chafes the wrists and attracts attention. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And how precisely have I acted in "buffoonish ways", Lothar? Did you stop and look at the situation? Did you assume good faith? Did you try and come up with alternatives? I know that a lot of the editors who have been discussing this issue have done all of that. But in deference to common courtesy and honorable conduct, which was prized in those same days you mention with the pillorying, please let me know where I was this "buffoon". Please let me know what I should have done better in order to avoid this fate you want to impose on me. -- Avanu (talk) 04:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In the dispute itself, you acted fine. I've pursued mediation in similar conflicts (though I haven't been involved in any dealing with minor typography). And while I stand by my support of the initial characterisation of the debate as "lame", I wouldn't have put your name down on a sanctions list. However, in this here AN thread, you've been behaving in a manner that does invite the ire of the people that you have waxed poetic complaining about. You have not consistently made it clear that you are defending you yourself. Some of what you say makes it seem like you are trying to justify the actions of the whole silly lot. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I *do* justify that whole lot. They've generally acted like adults and professionals, and nothing in Wikipedia says we have to impose artificial limits on how fast people resolve their discussions. I agree and have told them that the debate is a bit silly, but as long as THEY ARE WILLING to be civil and debate this amicably, why do a group of impatient or cross editors need to come in and *demand* they stop? I don't particularly care which way the debate itself goes, but I will be damned if I let our Wikipedia Pillars fall simply because a group of editors gets their gruff up and begins making demands, rather than being based on community participation and consensus, which this group has generally been doing. I've politely given my 2 cents to this group for ideas to resolve the disputes and so have each of them, but one thing I have never done is demand they act like I'm their boss. -- Avanu (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit warring is edit warring. If a page is put under full-protection, that's generally an indication that editors are not effectively resolving debates. It's typically a last-ditch effort to keep a page from being torn apart (speaking from my own experience). That y'all come over here and say that no action should be taken as repercussions to such shenanigans is really rather risible. Edit warring has consequences. Punkt. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is definitely hard to argue with a truism. But again, how precisely have I acted in "buffoonish ways"? And to be clear, I did not ask that no action be taken. In fact, quite the opposite. But rather than looking for people to pass judgement on the crowd, I am looking for people to actually propose useful mediation or discussion points or any number of positive approaches to solving this. -- Avanu (talk) 05:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    If you're going to do a topic ban, it should probably be extended to the en dash versus hyphen question in general, in MOS, in Title, in articles, etc. Otherwise, PMAnderson will just take his campaign to the next place and it will be business as usual. On the other hand, it does seem to be a rather unprecedented approach, just because some people see the issue under debate as less important than the debaters do. Dicklyon (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    But actually, this is about as lame as it gets. I really don't think such broad measures are warranted; I think we should trust that the editors involved in this depressingly mundane conflict to not spread this monkey business about the encyclopaedia. A single topic ban should drive home the point that this is really not worth fighting over. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, I am sure this would only result in a shifting of the battlefield to Spanish–American War. A one-year topic ban sounds a little harsh anyway. What we need is not discipline but somebody with authority to make a final decision on this that everybody agrees to abide by, hence why I recommended mediation. –CWenger (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there are several issues here, which are being fought piecemeal across numerous articles. The MOS prescribes en dashes for certain situations; the move at Mexican-American War was based on the argument that TITLE overrides MOS. However, it's not clear that the two are in conflict; they certainly weren't meant to be. If we're going with mediation, we need to answer whether TITLE intends for us to copy the style and formatting of our sources as well as their terminology, and if so, that needs to be made explicit in the policy. The follow-up argument would be whether the style and formatting of the title per TITLE (if it does address that issue) needs to be incorporated within the body of the article, overriding the MOS entirely. I don't think that's ever been the understanding, but we need a conclusion either way, or that reading will just be argued again in this crusade. Perhaps a third debate is whether we need explicit RS sourcing for the MOS, or if, as a style guide not in Mainspace, citations can be left to the talk page. — kwami (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Add to that a fourth debate about whether the MOS really calls for an en dash in Mexican~American War. Some would argue that only Mexico–America War would. –CWenger (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Some" is PMAnderson. That appears to be a spurious argument, as style guides contradict it and he has never been able to give a source for that claim. — kwami (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Some is (as this tempest in a teapot goes) a large number of people. For example, CWenger, to whom you reply, changed his !vote because he does not believe MOS requires the en dash; only Kwami and his two allies seem to believe it does. CWenger's sensible action is one reason I deplore Sandstein's suggestion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And add the real non-lame background debate: should the MOS follow the common usage in English language RS, just like MOS:FOLLOW says. Or should it follow the recommendations of style guides as chosen by a small group of vocal editors. The same vocal editors that have been edit-warring to insert their chosen punctuation over that used in RS.
    (Also, collateral damage from too-broad carpet banning. Topic banning the guy who bothers to get consensus via WP:RM and WP:CFD (me), along with the guys who misquote MOS:FOLLOW and MOS:CONSISTENCY and put MOS over policy WP:TITLE in order to edit-war their preferred versions (mainly Noetica and Tony1). And topic banning poor Avantu, whose only revert was a very common sense undoing of a revert made in undefensible and tendentious grounds[1]) --Enric Naval (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So, instead of dismissing the whole matter as "lame", some admin should go close the dangling RM, block the guys that keep edit-warring against the closure of consecutive RMs. And then maybe some sort of order will be restored in WT:MOS, and it will slowly become a style guide that really follows the usage in real world and not the desires of the guy who shouts the loudest and reverts the most. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Common English-language usage is to put a short horizontal line between the words "Mexican" and "American". The length of that line is a dispute over typography. --Carnildo (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I'd go with a hyphen because I think that ndahses and mdashes between two words with no spaces just looks awkward and because almost no one is going to search for something using an ndahsh or mdash, they're going to use a hyphen. However a stronger statement needs to be made here. We are all out here to build an encyclopedia, and yet continuously we wind up arguing over incredibly stupid trivialities. With the amount of time wasted on this incident, an article could be brought from stub quality to B quality at least. At some point, perhaps after three or four users become involved and hit an impasse, you just need to start an RfC, follow whatever outcome comes out of it, and move the f**k on. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Something really does need to be done about this general area: there are editors that were removing {{singlechart}} from articles on the basis that it accurately quoted hyphens from source titles when our MOS insists on en-dashes. The last time an editor went through and made the sources inaccurate, I just gave up. That sad thing is that I have to do a hex-dump of a file to be sure which one I have, anyway. I can't for the life of me figure out why this issue has the importance to some that it seems to have achieved. I vote for doesn't matter. Perhaps the best thing to do is to request a Wikimedia change to render both punctuation characters the same way (flip a coin to choose which), and then the whole issue will die.—Kww(talk) 22:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Couldn't we just take the example of the guy who wrote this[2]? PhGustaf (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) At this point, tempting as that is, no, I don't think that'll work. They'll wind up debating the rules of rock paper scissors... "does scissors cut sheet rock?", "if the paper is a cardboard, would it really cover the rock?", "that user waited until after I started to move before casting his handsign. I declare it invalid and get dynamite the next round." and so on and so forth. No, I'm more in favor of a binding RfC on the issue of dashes in titles. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And I think you're silly. First you jump in with your opinion on the dispute that they're trying to suppress. Then you declare it trivial. Then you argue against a joke. Then you call for a binding RfC. Surreal. No waste of time here, no sir. Dicklyon (talk) 02:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Between the attitude and your utter inability to follow logical arguements, I can see why you're a party in this increibally stupid issue. Yes, the longer this goes on the more in favor I am of banning you from the issue. Here's a very basic explanation of my points, bulleted, so that even you can understand it.
    • That it got this far means that least one, likely more of you is unable to work constructively as part of a group. When people prove incompetent at basic social interactions, the community tends to lose patience with them, hence the topic ban proposal.
    • This is a trivial argument. The length of a dash is incredibly unimportant compared to literally hundreds of other factors in an article. None the less, the argument is ongoing.
    • I weighed in on the discussion because I figured that other people would as well in some desperate attempt to end this nonsense. I have no stake in the mess, I just want it, and at this point you, to go away.
    Thank you for your time. Now if you excuse me, I have a "support topic ban" vote to go cast. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This is a very inappropriate 'drive-by' application of power. There is no "incessant drama", there is no "spilling out", the request I made of Sandstein originally was no different than I would have made for any other situation with an article. Again, this really simply needs an admin who is willing to *care* rather than a simple "this is lame" and drive on. Most of the comments of support I am seeing are by people who have little involvement and are simply taking this at Sandstein's word. I have been a bystander in this debate for a while asking for the parties to come to various conclusions, and have been in the middle of the road, and I don't appreciate the threat of being banned from a topic for having done nothing more than act in good faith. My suggestion is to close this now, and if not, and this proceeds down this path, I can only say that my faith following our Wikipedia Pillars and in allowing the community to resolve issues is misplaced here. -- Avanu (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Response This seems a very odd time for such a proposal; the matter is virtually settled.
    • There have been two requested moves at Talk:Mexican-American War, both have been closed by admins to the same spelling.
    • There is a textual proposal at Wikipedia_talk:TITLE#Edit_protected, which (after some discussion of two words: please and typographical) is now waiting for some admin to add it to the text. So far, every one concerned accepts the substance; everyone who has spoken (Blueboar, Noetica, myself...) appears to be willing to tolerate the proposed wording at the bottom of the section.
    I would welcome more discussion of the several substantive issues involved here; but a topic ban will hardly help that; it will merely ensure that those of us with strong feelings on the matter don't participate or benefit.
    I do think that there are degrees of responsibility here: one editor (I'd name him if I were asking for penalties) responded to having an 8-2 RM closed in the way he didn't like by alleging corruption in the closing admin; Avanu, on the other hand, merely wants Talk:Mexican-American War to be on Polk and Santa Anna rather than typographic minutiae; I hope I fall somewhere in the middle.
    But none of these rise to the level of a topic ban; and if they did, this would be throwing out the baby with the bath water. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is PMAnderson's rampage. He completely misrepresents it when he says "There have been two requested moves at Talk:Mexican-American War, both have been closed by admins to the same spelling." The first was his move request, one of his several attempts to roll back progress of recent years in consistently using en dash where appropriate, and it his move was approved even though there was clearly not a consensus to do so, and those of us who had opposed him elsewhere were unaware that he had taken his campaign there. Then someone argued that it should be moved back since this decision was improper; not surprisingly, still no consensus, so it was closed as no consensus. You can't in good faith cite these two as precedents to do more of same. Things would settle down if the one improper move was fixed, putting everything back into a consistent state. Dicklyon (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please check your facts, and read my comments here. The first RM was announced in WT:MOS the day it was opened. One AN thread didn't seem to have any problem with the way the RMs were done. If you think that the RMs were improperly closed then challenge it somewhere instead of re-stating that it was improper while giving zero proof. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Gentlemen, the temperature is too high here, too: it is most unhelpful. I have posted a strong suggestion that everyone at Mexican~American War take a cold shower, tone it down, slow it down, and depersonalise all posts. A topic ban in this case is most inappropriate, as pointed out by several editors above: it would be pointless as currently conceived. An interim solution is to let be for quite a while. The matter should be sorted out in a calmer and more collegial environment ... some time down the track, not next week. We all have better things to do than get steamed up. Can we see if this issue will self-settle for the moment? It would require just the smallest cooperation by all, as a community practicality. (I have had little time for WP over the past weeks, I regret). Tony (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    New policy candidate: WP:Short horizontal line

    With apologies to Carnildo, I submit my new policy candidate: Wikipedia:Short horizontal line.—Kww(talk) 23:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Support and urge implementation on a bold, emergency basis.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Support If this fails to resolve the problem, I suggest we commission a ShortHorizontalLineRandomiserBot to chug its way around demonstrating our total lack of concern over the whole pointless argument. ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Support Common sense dictates that all article titles must consist of the ASCII characters any common keyboard would be expected to produce. As for how the text of the article should appear -- eh, whatever. Let them beat each other senseless & the winner gets to decide. -- llywrch (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Contrarian support. We don't need this incessant drama over hyphens and dashes, over and over again. If anybody has a burning desire to "fix" thousands of articles, that's commendable, but there are more important things to be fixed. We can worry about fine-tuning our horizontal lines after cleaning up the fiction, BLP violations, nationalist battlegrounds, spam, and banning anybody who has ever editwarred over music genres ever. On the other hand I would disagree with llywrch because (a) sometimes it's appropriate to have diacriticals in the names of foreign subjects, and (b) I like opening cans of worms. bobrayner (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This means we should consider editors over readers, substitute hyphens for minus/negative signs as well, and substitute double hyphens for em dashes, like in a mimeographed newsletter. — kwami (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply I don't think you read the proposal carefully. When would an em-dash be used in a title or a likely search term?—Kww(talk) 00:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fixed your revision, as your revision seems to have missed the point. I've got a Computer Engineering degree, have been working with the things for 30 years, and have no idea how to type an mdash on a standard keyboard. Expecting a typical user or editor to know how doesn't make much sense. Sadly, I'm approaching 3RR on a guideline about dashes and hyphens that was intended to show how silly it is to edit war over dashes and hyphens.—Kww(talk) 02:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That little edit war is strike two. (Changing the meaning of a half-satirical commentary on a lame dispute only makes it lamer.) Strike three, & the Battle of the Dashes gets its own lame entry. -- llywrch (talk) 04:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – See Pmanderson's comment. WYSIWYG has made people HTML-ignorant. I could understand using hyphens in redirects and links, but I believe that en dashes make this encyclopedia more presentable. If they can learning to use wikitext and templates, then learn to type – and — should be relatively simple. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How many angels can dance on a very short horizontal line? - don't care. The occasional editing irritation caused by using something other than a hyphen in a title is precisely matched by the minor benefit of having correct typography (when non-hyphens are correctly used). That delicate balance is blown out of the water when arguments about correctness get out of hand; but sometimes that's life Wikipedia for you. In sum, the specific application of this minor thing has got out of hand, but completely dismissing the issue sui generis is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Rd232 talk 03:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Kww's wording, and also support adding Kwamikagami (talk · contribs) to the list of proposed topic-banned editors, for completely reversing the meaning of Kww's post. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose and suggest that if this incredibly misguided idea is for real, it needs community-wide attention. Rivertorch (talk) 05:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose—it is just too bizarre for words, and is not the kind of topic that is appropriate for discussion here. The issues it raises are so broad, involve so much of the whole style-guide policy interrelationship, that it defies belief anyone would approve it. The Mexican~American thing should have been debated on style-guide talk pages: that is what the style guides are for, to prevent drama on actual article pages. We can thus expect a bit of heated debate at style guides. Best place for it. Tony (talk) 10:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Which of the horizontal lines to use is essentially an arbitrary decision. The current rules are pretty good by aesthetic criteria, but they are wrong in the sense that by being too complicated they cause disruption, and also because they are impractical. In our computerised era there is a tendency towards one horizontal line to rule them all (the shortest one), and by trying to stop it we are setting up technical difficulties for readers (who search for specific expressions in their browsers) and editors. Let's stop using dashes right now (this is just a first step in that direction), and revisit the decision if and when computers begin to support them properly. Hans Adler 10:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose in this form. Baby-to-bathwater proportion too high for my taste. It's also not something to be decided at WP:AN. You don't solve a style guide issue by writing a parallel new style guide in competition with the first, and ramming it through with a vote on AN. I sympathize with an effort to cut back on some of the outgrowths of WP:MOS, but this can only be solved at MOS itself. What I would welcome would be a new discussion there, from which, however, those editors with an overly entrenched involvement in the conflict should (voluntarily?) abstain, in the interest of everybody's sanity and to let other voices be heard. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per above. This is starting to get ridiculous. -FASTILY (TALK) 11:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this a serious proposal? If so, well, "oppose." Both hyphens and endashes have their places. Franco-Prussian War has a hyphen, Iran–Iraq War has an endash, Mexican American War will wind up with one or the other once people sort it out. I see no need for a blanket "hyphenate everything" policy when 99+% of the existing article titles with endashes or minus signs or whatever are utterly uncontroversial. If this isn't a serious proposal, but rather a way to highlight how silly it is to generate kilobytes of heated discussion over a single punctuation choice... well, I'll "support" that. 28bytes (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support in Strongest Possible Terms* policy proposal Wikipedia:Short horizontal line, by Kww(talk) or, in the alternative, something very close to that, to be decided on after seeking the CONSENSUS OF THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY, AND NOT JUST A FEW EXPERT LINGUISTS. With great respect to these linguists, in my opinion the presence or absence of the "various forms of horizontal lines" in various places is EXTREMELY unlikely to generate ANY significant reduction in the net quality and quantity of knowledge gleaned from reading any given article. In addition, when one also weighs the quality and quantity of aggravation and time expended on the arguing and fixing problems generated by these types of issues, the overall net result is a TREMENDOUS WASTE OF TIME AND EXTREME AGGRAVATION for many, many people. Lastly, and generally, I also strongly agree with the comments made (above) by Wehwalt (talk), Heiro, SarekOfVulcan (talk), Hans Adler, and I respectfully disagree strongly with comments made by kwami (talk), and Tony. Best regards to all:Uploadvirus (talk).
    • Comment – This encyclopedia would be ten times better if users spent more time discussing how to make it more accurate and more professional-looking. I don't see these discussions as wasteful. If one doesn't believe these discussions to be worthwhile, then one shouldn't drag themselves into them. I'm not sure why people who could care less take sides. Do they enjoy fighting on the Internet? Are they opportunists seeing a vulnerable debate that they could "win" by screaming "trivial" or "keyboard"? Do they see an opportunity to involve themselves in a topic ban discussion and gain Internet reputation (wikipoints)? My advice would be to leave these discussions to those who truly care (the experts). You aren't obligated to participate. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question – How do we handle other characters that aren't on the keyboard (eg. "é" as in "cliché")? The British pound sign (£) isn't on American keyboards as well. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • With redirects, usually. For example, jalapeno redirects to jalapeño, Paul Erdos redirects to Paul Erdős, etc. 28bytes (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then why not create redirects with hyphens, and redirect them to pages with en dashes in their titles? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's indeed been the long-standing practice and is also already mandated explicitly by the MOS. But of course it doesn't solve the issue of when to use the dashes in the first place. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's currently being done. Whether you type Mexican American War, Mexican-American War or Mexican–American War, redirects will take you to where you want to go. The question under debate is whether the actual article title should have a hyphen, like Franco-Prussian War, or an endash, like Iran–Iraq War. 99% of people don't care, of course. 28bytes (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're missing the point. We're discussing Kww's proposal, and the logic behind the proposal is: If a Wikipedia editor is expected to be able to type it, a hyphen should be used. The proposal says that articles should have titles that are convenient to type. That's what I'm arguing against. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • This really doesn't scale well when you combine it with our normal alternate capitalization redirects. Assume a hypothetical song titled "Cold–hearted Man". Should we have redirects at "Cold–Hearted Man", "Cold-hearted Man", and "Cold-Hearted Man"? "The Cold-hearted Man Sings the Blues" would get about 8 redirects, and I dread to consider "The Cold-hearted Man Sings the Blues About His Hard–hearted Woman".—Kww(talk) 16:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Does extra redirects hurt the wiki? Will it corrupt our databases? Will it collapse and fall into anarchy? The only harmful redirects are the libelous ones. Now I'm wondering who's truly making a big deal out of the trivial? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • (ec) The phenomenon that co-occurrence of several possible points of variation in the same title may lead to proliferation of mathematically possible combinations and multiple possible redirects is nothing new, and nothing specific to the issue of dashes. Think of capitalization, ENGVAR spelling variants, alternative transliterations of foreign names, accented and unaccented characters, etc. We've had all of these for years, and each of them can co-occur with any other, sometimes at multiple points in the same title. Yes, we sometimes do 4, 8, 16, … redirects in such cases. Redirects are cheap. We've always handled this. In practice, not all mathematically conceivable combinations usually need to be done though – given the way the autocompletion function works in the search box, what's usually needed is just one redirect each for every possible spelling of the first n letters, up to the point where the string becomes unambigous. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Kww's example might be a little contrived, but I think I do agree with his underlying point. If there were a proposal to change the underlying software to treat all dashes equivalently in article titles, similar to the way uppercase and lowercase letters are treated equivalently in the first character of a title, I'd strongly consider supporting that. I can't imagine a case where "X-Y" and "X–Y" would be separate articles rather than one being a redirect to the other one. Which, I guess, is not terribly different from his proposal, but in either case, there would need to be a software change to allow the title to be rendered with the correct punctuation, analogous to the magic word that renders EBay as eBay. 28bytes (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • That's a good point. Even though I know of at least one example of "-" vs. "–" in titles that actually are distinct targets: the pages "-" and "–" themselves. (One is in fact a dab page, the other a redirect to Dash). I sincerely hope those are the only ones. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Good point about the pages "-" and "–". I think merging those two pages would be a small sacrifice to make. Unless I'm missing some other legitimate reason where "X-Y" and "X–Y" should be separate articles, I can't really think of any reasons not to consider a software solution that would essentially end the titling problem once and for all. There would still be debates on how to display the title, but it would completely eliminate requested move debates, since the article title would be the same regardless of how it displayed. 28bytes (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I could strongly support that as well. If there was ever a content-based reason to distinguish the articles, we would still need to use special handling simply because the difference between the two titles is not easily perceptable.—Kww(talk) 19:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Perhaps someone database-savvy could run a query to see if there are any cases where a pair of pages "X-Y" and "X–Y" don't point to the same place. Other than the -/– case, I can't think of any cases in which that would be desirable, but empirical evidence is always good. 28bytes (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support It is silly to require that WP editors use any characters not rapidly and readily available on standard keyboards. Though I am thinking of replacing all the "Y"s in "Ye olde" with proper "thorns" Þ. Not. The amount of energy spent on using a multitude of symbols is absurd IMO. Collect (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Opppose: This isn't a terrible idea, but it wouldn't solve the underlying dispute. It would just move it from article titles to article content. Not sure that is an improvement. And it seems unnecessary, as we already provide redirects for non-standard keyboard characters. Would this apply to diacritics too? It would actually make more work because we would need some way to change the appearance of the article title like in iPhone, or have one of those unsightly {{correct reason}} tags like at C Sharp (programming language). –CWenger (^ • @) 20:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support At least article content is meaningful for us. Just use a hyphen, it's the only key that everyone, be they American, British, Australian, Canadian etc, has. (also, no right minded user would ever say: "Oh man! They should have used an en-dash instead of an em-dash! How dare they?!") --Rockstonetalk to me! 01:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    omg common sense

    I think it's funny that people are arguing over a dash versus a hyphen. Will this really affect our readers' learning about the subject or comprehension of the article? It's a single character; we're not five-year-olds, here. Can one or both sides just drop this completely silly dispute, stop making nonsensical claims about its wide-reaching significance about which policies/guidelines to follow, and just shut the fuck up? This sort of debate is what makes Wikipedia the laughingstock of academics—more time is spent figuring out the damn dashes/hyphens than actually improving the article".

    There are quite a few unsourced paragraphs in the article. Someone should start sourcing them. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Something something deck chairs something something Titanic. → ROUX ₪ 02:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    On a more serious note, this whole furfurrah quite neatly epitomizes so many of the problems facing Wikipedia: small groups of overly-passionate editors intent on protecting their little fiefdoms; ignoring what readers (you know, those millions of people every day who use Wikipedia as a resource) need, and don't need. viz, they don't give a tinker's damn whether it's an endash, an emdash, a hyphen, or a squiggly line as long as the semantic meaning is clear; prizing form over function and style over substance; and finally, raising the barrier to entry for new editors even higher than it already is by forcing them to conform to some bizarrely arcane typography instead of actually, y'know, editing the fucking encyclopedia. → ROUX ₪ 02:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia has a copy editors guild, among its many specialized groups. Each editor brings something different, unique, and often helpful to Wikipedia. If we were to simply focus on content, without regarding to grammar or punctuation, I assure you Wikipedia would be laughed at and dismissed out of hand. It is the kind of dedication that we see among these editors that are willing to endure such a subject and its minutiae that makes Wikipedia outstanding. Flippant comments without a firm foundation in the overall situation do not. -- Avanu (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    But actually, comparing this frivolous battle over the length of a horizontal line segment to copyediting is almost insulting to those who copyedit. Nobody really cares if there is a hyphen or endash in the title; it does not affect readability one iota. Spelling and grammar mistakes within the articles themselves do. Please, stop fluffing up your feathers to make yourself and this pathetic edit-war seem more important than you and it actually are. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, since most of you seem intent on lecturing people about this instead of getting a background on the situation, let me clarify. In many ways, I agree with you that the dispute is not terribly important. And I have consistently taken that position in this, one of neutrality and levity and just having fun with Wikipedia. The idea that "Nobody really cares" is completely inconsistent with the facts here. There are many editors who have spent days discussing things and debating points, and now we have a group of people who seem to be going right along with an overbearing request by an admin, and yet these people haven't taken more than a few seconds to dwell on why this issue has been important to these people. This isn't *my* edit war. That is one thing that I find terribly inappropriate about Sandstein's request. He didn't bother to really look into this, he just pronounced it "lame" and damn the lot of them. And it seems the community, who I consistently turn to and regard as the backbone of this encyclopedia are acting like a kangaroo court, pronouncing judgement with a bare whiff of the situation and damn to whoever might be caught in the tempest of your fury of apathy. This is so far in opposition to the Pillar of Civility, I simply have to wonder if those who quickly 'vote' to condemn even really believe in it. -- Avanu (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that a handful of Wikipedia editors spent wasted days of their lives time quarrelling about something so flat-out inane as hyphen-vs-endash in an article title does not mean that anybody really cares. The community's time is being wasted by this troupe of third-rate clowns and their petty slapstick; that is why we are all so dismissive of this. This can hardly be pushed under the umbrella of 'encyclopaedic improvement'. Instead of improving the article, editors warred across several pages over the length of a small dash. A goddamn dash! Those are the "facts" of the situation. Sandstein's judgement was impeccable in denouncing this conflict as "lame". In this case, the edit-war was so unproductive and so utterly useless that the motives of the editors are quite immaterial. As for "civility", this would not be a problem if the topic bans were accepted and everybody moved on. No, instead, the participants in this farce had to try and indignantly explain why their risible, reprehensible behaviour was somehow justified. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It unfortunately does affect readability if apparently similar titles on different pages look subtly different--this is especially noticeable in scanning a large number of pages, as it checking each item in a category or a list. In most languages, compromises are made on the strict rules for titles and headlines, which are designed for maximum recognition rather than exactness. It would be perfectly reasonable in my opinion to have a rule that all hyphens and en dashes in titles automatically convert to hyphens, regardless of the rest of the article (It would in my opinion also be logical to have a rule that accent marks are not used in article titles). It's the same sort of thing as the rule (originally technical) that titles begin with a capital letter. Article titles are an organizational feature, not content. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It has no effect on the content of the article. It does not change or muddle meaning. Perhaps it is a minor annoyance to those with sharp eyes. Nothing more. Certainly nothing worth edit warring over. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As a non-admin who got caught up in the hyphen/endash issue when the latter was improperly and arbitrarily applied to a certain series of articles (Category:Regional districts of British Columbia), only to discover other articles where in normal English hyphens are the norm (the debate focussing on Poland-Lithuania), and faced with the "consensus has been that endash should be used in all XYZ cases", when in fact DASH wasn't even read or applied properly in the first place, it's very clear that there was NEVER a consensus on the blanket across-bthe-board "extermination of the hyphen wherever possible because we're Wikipedians and we know better", and it's clear from the mere existence of this discussion that it's now more clear than ever that the pro-DASH crowd enjoy no conensus other than their own. To this date, while having had to conceded the Poland-Lithuania "can" have a hyphen, they have stonewalled that the adjectival form of same MUST have an endash because of their interpretation (and apparent control/OWN of DASH), even though this is not ordinary English, not used at all in ANY source...."we don't have to obey the sources because they didnt' ahve advanced typographical techology like we do" and "people who don't use the ENDASH are just lazy" etc....the debates to get the simple LEGAL names of the BC regional districts returned to their proper legal form took exhaustive energies on my part and very nearly drove me from Wikipedia altogether (as POV/SOAP/SPAM problems with Canadian poltiical/electoral articles are about to again, though for more legitimate and less trivial reasons)....during those debates I was insulted and degraded while at the same time being accused of personal attacks (attackers often do that to their victims, bullying is like that y'know...), and it was even suggested that British Columbians were backwards and not sophisticated etc etc....finally I consulted with the Legislative Counsel of British Columbia (the government's lawyer, and also the maintainer of the official style guide) and it was only with citations of teh actual legislation that the hyphens were - only begrudingly - restored. This was utterly inane, took weeks of energy and time, and left a bad taste in my mouth to the point where MOSTALK definitely has a "keep away, this is our playground not yours" sandbox feel to it; somebody's own little empire, where "consensus" means "us, not you". So how this affects your little discussion here I'm not sure exactly, as I'm only a non-admin interloper, but I'm providing testimony about exactly how inane and extensive this hyphen/dash thing has aggravated at least one busy editor, who really had better things to do, but had to get the legitimate names of articles (and associated categories( restored by complicated and argumentative processes that never should have been changed without discussion/notice in the first place and which didn't actually cite DASH properly to start with!!!. Others monitoring this know how pithy I can get so I'm holding my tongue, and sorry, I'm not capable of that "100 words or less" nonsense, and was confronted in those debates by that same demand, and also insulted by "Too long did not read", which to me is just someone who doesn't want to admit the legitimacy of an argument and wants to ignore its existence. But that this is still stuck in my craw is a sign of how rabid this particular pack of control-freak admins behaved, and if a topic-ban is what's being called for against them, I'm all for that; it might be a good idea to ban them from MOS for a season too and get them working on actual articles - instead of coming up with new and creative ways to drive away those who DO. No doubt some might argue, also, that "topic-ban" should have an endash and not a hyphen....if the silly quasi-grammatical breakdown of common compounds were applied as if cast-iron or carved in stone, which is how DASH was treated (while ignoring HYPHEN, or even what DASH actually said).Skookum1 (talk) 04:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (multiple edit conflicts) To the best of my recollection, I have never edited the article about a certain armed conflict between two North American countries, nor do I belong to the Guild of Copy Editors. I have no dog in this specific fight. However, as someone who copyedits frequently and extensively, I do care about the use of standard punctuation in Wikipedia articles. Avanu is quite correct: punctuation is important. Despite their similarity in appearance, hyphens and the two kinds of dashes have different functions; they are not interchangeable, and their misuse absolutely does affect readability for many readers.

    One of the reasons I was moved to begin editing here (as an IP, six or seven years ago) was because I kept encountering articles with superb content obscured behind a shroud of careless or ignorant misspellings, errors of simple grammar, tortured syntax, and, yes, misemployed punctuation marks. A hyphen is no more equivalent to an em-dash than a period is to a comma or a colon. Substituting one for the other can distort or eclipse intended meaning some of the time; it will make the content look sloppy and unprofessional all of the time.

    Creating an en-dash using Mac OS requires pressing a grand total of two keys—the same number of keys it takes to get a question mark. It's a little harder with Windows but still no big deal. It isn't "arcane typography" at all, just typography—and available to the masses for over a quarter-century now. I don't mind cleaning up other editors' punctuation—actually, I rather enjoy it sometimes—but I don't think I'd care to put much time or effort into the world's first encyclopedia that formally allows nonstandard punctuation. Rivertorch (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you explain how use or misuse of these characters effects readability for a significant numbers of users? RxS (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I can try, but I'm a little reluctant to add to the clutter here. It's sort of beyond the proper scope of AN, you know? Let me just specify that I was referring to these punctuation marks in general, not just in titles. If you'd still like a reply (here or anywhere), let me know; I don't usually watch this page. Rivertorch (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I think if you're backing up a certain point of view here with a claim about usability here, I think an explanation here is appropriate. RxS (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    All right, then. RL intrudes, but I'll try to gather my thoughts and post something here later. Rivertorch (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I can try to explain. I like the way this guide puts it, since it applies fairly generally, doesn't arbitrarily restrict the joined items to be nouns, etc. The hyphen is a joiner, the dash a separator. If you want to indicate a war of Mexico against America, for example, the en dash is appropriate, whereas if you want to speak of a Mexican Amercan as an adjective, you hyphenate it; alternative with neither, as in "Mexican American War" is also acceptable, since punctuation is often omitted from compounded names; if you wrote "Mexican American culture" it's really not clear what that means, whereas "Mexican-American culture" would be culture of Mexican Americans, and "Mexican–American culture" or "Mexican–American trade agreement" would be related to the two separate countries. Doing it wrong conveys the wrong meaning, and for people who are used to reading things with careful typography, it offends the "ear" of the reader in the same sense that misplaced commas do, when they signal a meaning that conflicts with the ultimate interpretation. Dicklyon (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the best point I have heard in a long time: Mexican–American culture (culture of Mexico and America) versus Mexican-American culture (culture of Mexican Americans). That is an actual, realistic distinction. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Recommend topic ban proposal be dropped

    Its entirely my fault for even asking Sandstein for advice on this article (Mexican-American War) in the first place. I had hoped my appeal to an admin for assistance would provide a strong, clear voice, willing to shepherd things and help all of the editors in coming to a resolution that had broad community support. The real problem with the debate is that both sides have strong cases for their positions. And we only get to have 1 title. So you're left with a less than perfect solution either way.

    This group of editors may not be perfect, but they have been a lot more civil to one another than several of the editors here at the Admin Noticeboard have been to them. My suggestion is that we find an admin who is willing to actually look at this and find a *positive* solution. Not labeling or wanting to ban, but truly interested in taking this to a place where consensus, or at least contentment can be had.

    I now regret involving Sandstein in this, and would kindly ask that he let this go and instead let an admin take over who is willing to be neutral not only on the issues, but also on the editors. That has been my general approach to the article, and I see no point in abusing a group of editors who have been working in good faith to collaborate toward a solution. -- Avanu (talk) 05:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC) If you plan on commenting in the section below, I would politely ask that you not simply 'vote', but actually provide a reason and rationale.[reply]

    Oppose. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose I understand that the issue is important to a select few people; however, it appears to be a very minor issue with most folks. That being said, if the constant back and forth is going to continue as it has, then it falls under the disruption clause of your contract. Eventually we try to put an end to that. — Ched :  ?  16:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. A ban seems like a really odd way to settle a style dispute. Banning everyone who's been involved so far assumes no one else will pick up the hyphen or endash banner and resume the fight later, and back here we'll be. Seems like the sensible thing to do would be to start an RfC to settle the matter conclusively if there's any remaining contention about the title. If any editors refuse to honor the result of the RfC, then start handing out bans. 28bytes (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Support—I agree, it's very odd. As conceived, a ban would simply invite the involvement of other similar articles. Please see my request that editors cool off and back down as a practical measure. I believe this boring little issue might be seen for what it is in a cooler light, and that it should be given a chance to settle, if editors can depersonalise and leave off. Dare I say it, this would be more likely to work than a misconceived ban (do you not see the scope problem with it?). Another RfC ... possibly, if people are really not willing to give it a rest ... run by an uninvolved party. Tony (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC) PS I see that Mr Anderson has already reacted positively to the "cool off, slow down, depersonalise" idea. Tony (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I have not taken part in that discussion, but am quite familiar with it, having used WT:MOS frequently to ask questions. I must say that I feel strongly that none of the involved parties have done anything to warrant being topic-banned. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Support: Not a productive solution. –CWenger (talk) 02:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would hope that, were I to ask a group of informed Wikipedians to comment on a dispute I had with another Wikipedian, a large number of them told me that the dispute was trivial, stupid & lame, I would consider the possibility that maybe -- just maybe, mind you -- the dispute was truly trivial, stupid, & lame, instead of whining that I was being misunderstood. And maybe -- just maybe, mind you -- there might be one or two other Wikipedians who would consider that same possibility. -- llywrch (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Topic Ban

    Withdrew my vote and associated discussion. See below.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    At this point it is quite clear to me that at least some of the users listed as involved are incapable of the most basic of group communications. This simply will not be resolved until the editors are forcefully removed from the dispute. Therefore I say that yes, we should topic ban at least some of the parties from all hyphen/dash related activities.

    • Support Topic Ban Judging only from the spillover onto this page, right now I only support it for the first three, Avanu, Enric Naval, and Dicklyon. Of the other three one has been constructive and the other two absent. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What did I do? -- Avanu (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Through aggressive arguments and continued pushing of your views on this forum, you helped to escalate a quagmire that is already out of control into something that is even more out of control. I will admit though that of the three that I believe should be topic banned, my support of banning you is the weakest. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I find a suggestion that I be topic banned in the first place to be awfully agressive. My impression of Sanstein's bringing this here is to make it into a quagmire. I sincerely asked for his help and he responded with a slap in the face. As I said to another editor, it makes no sense at all for a person to be topic banned from a topic that he has been *neutral* on. Shall I just go on being more neutral? My issue is those editors here who didn't take the time to review things and get a deeper understanding and think that the only way to fix things is to punish people. -- Avanu (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My comments here haven't been constructive? Oh, well, I tried. Dicklyon (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Screw it, this isn't really the answer. I gave a long explanation at my user talk page as to my thoughts on the matter, but here's a nice excerpt. "...at this point anything short of a siteban is just going to be a delay, because I can just see this thing exploding again continuously until it winds up a smoldering putrid heap on ArbCom's doorstep...". That being said, I guess the best answer going forward is a binding RfC, which was suggested above somewhere. Either way you all choose, have at it, I'm done with this mess. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC

    • I think a binding RfC would be the ideal solution. Among the complaints I've seen from the participants are that the venues in which the issue is being argued (e.g. the talk page of an article) are not broad enough, so a well-advertised RfC would be the best means to ensure a result that everyone can consider legitimate. Any takers? 28bytes (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Support: I like this idea. If it fails we can go to mediation and show them we tried this first. –CWenger (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Support a binding RfC iff it is supervised in such a way that new voices won't be drowned in the shouting by the old disputants with their entrenched positions. Interested parties get to present their position in one paragraph each plus supporting evidence, then a phase of endorsements. No threaded debate beyond that point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with that approach 100%. One paragraph per editor would be an excellent way to encourage the interested parties to put their best case forward and let others comment, instead of a back-and-forth that spirals out of control. 28bytes (talk) 05:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What is a binding RfC? Why not mediation? Dicklyon (talk) 05:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think mediation would run the danger of personalizing the issue even more between this core group of editors with entrenched positions, would encourage even more back-and-forth between them, and would have the effect of excluding rather than encouraging the input of new outside voices. Frankly, what we need is less of you guys talking, not more. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. And by binding, I mean that the participants agree that, whatever the community decides, that lays the issue to rest, and we don't see a bunch of move requests two weeks later to put it "the other way". 28bytes (talk) 05:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, it must be crystal clear that the results of this RfC apply to everything in Wikipedia concerning the Mexican~American War, and possibly also similarly named wars using multiple proper adjectives, e.g. Spanish~American War (we'll have to get an agreement on that before we proceed). –CWenger (talk) 06:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of adjectives, the best style guide that I know of includes en dash connecting adjectives (possessive–genitive dichotomy; not proper ones, though, unless you want to count Marxist–Trotskyite as adjectives); but trying to settle this in the context of the Mexican–American War is probably not a great idea, since as many have pointed out the predominant usage of that one doesn't follow the style guides. Dicklyon (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (Speaking as an interested part), looks like a good solution, I would gladly accept these conditions. What do the other parties say? --Enric Naval (talk) 09:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If this RfC is only about articles and categories related to the Mexican–American War, I'll happily stay out of it. But if, as some suggest, it's part of the larger campaign to rewrite the MOS to avoid en dashes, then I don't think I'm ready to turn that over to mob rule. Normal consensus processes at wikipedia that have been ongoing for years have got it into a good stable state; we can talk about it, but let's not precommit to accepting some kind of vote to change it just because most editors don't know much about en dashes. Dicklyon (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    OK guys, the joke's gone on long enough

    I have not commented on this whole jesting thread because I have no time for such frivolity right now. But Sandstein, it is probably time to bring it to an end. People seem to be taking it seriously! The very idea: that commenting on your suggestion should itself count as grounds for a ban of any sort! :) That did raise a quick laugh for me, I admit.

    Apart from all that, it is unsettling to see the word fuck thrown around quite so freely. By Wikipedia policy (WP:NOTCENSORED) they are permitted to post like that. But it is doubtful that they are immune on other grounds. "They're cunts," someone might say – if I can fabricate an example in the tone that they have set here – "those petty tyrannical admins who refuse to spend time understanding the issues and simply choose to swat everyone in the vicinity, including innocent bystanders." That would be out of line, right? Of course, it could not be censored: but there would be behavioural guidelines against it, surely.

    So, everyone: how about calling this off, and getting back to serious business? The Project has enough problems at the moment without jokes that are left to get out of hand.

    NoeticaTea? 03:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    What, you would pass up the opportunity to topic-ban a random set of people for being too interested in a trivial topic? Dicklyon (talk) 04:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on, Dicklyon. I know it's all rollicking good fun: but let's just get back to work now. NoeticaTea? 05:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Noetica, what do you think of the RfC proposal above? --Enric Naval (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Enric! Still with the jokes, eh? Not bad, not bad ... but a little subtle for most of the audience here. You see, they will miss the deep irony in your putting that question to me, of all "participants" in this dispute ☺. May I suggest you keep the tap-dancing in your routine, because the comedy is not quite working yet. O, and study Sandstein's dead-pan delivery. Sheer mastery! NoeticaTea? 01:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Noetica: As someone who is not on particularly good terms with anyone in this dispute, I must say that the only way I can describe your posts here thus far is "dickish troll". It is painfully clear that there is bad blood abound, but right now everyone else is actively looking for a solution and you are actively trying to thwart it. Consider being very quiet for a while, because every time you open your mouth, peoples' opinions of you drop sharply. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Important question

    Discussion on whether to use en and em dashes or not aside, how does one type it with a Mac OS keyboard? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    See Dash. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Appended Notes

    Appended note: Having sought advice on the talkpage, I add this according to the customs of this page as I now understand them. The editor who closed this discussion did so immediately after making a comment about me. I do not counter that here, and am happy to see this thread closed. But I reply, as I have a right to, at User talk:Sven Manguard, where the exchange may be read in the history. (It has been redacted by the editor.) NoeticaTea? 13:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I had already closed the conversation on my talk page, becuase I do not believe I was dealing with a user acting in good faith, and I do not want the issue in general to be on my page. I consider Noetica's actions here to be those of a troll, as I explained on my talk page, and refuse to allow a troll to use my talk page as a forum. Therefore I removed Noetica's comments as I would removed the comments of any other vandal. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am new to this page and its unprecedented viciousness, and perils lying in wait for the innocent; so I ask for editors' indulgence if I make a wrong step.
    Sven: you called me a "dickish troll", and attempted – by a demagogic appeal – to silence me and belittle my few words here (which were intended to treat the whole thread, most charitably, as a joke that got out of hand). You then unilaterally closed the discussion, imposing your editorial summary at the top. "Troll" is not a word I use, but editors will decide to whom it is best applied in these circumstances.
    Now I find that you still want the last word, after you have closed the discussion in such high-handed style. I have discussed this with you at your talkpage, and anyone can look at the history there (since you deleted my last response to you) to see all that was said. Next we find that an admin has warned you at your talkpage, and I have been urged at my talkpage to take firm action to "do us all a favour and shut [Sven] down once and for all". You can consider yourself fortunate that I have never taken such action, and am not about to start. If this continues, I may have to reconsider that stance. Please: can we leave this? Without repeated accusations? NoeticaTea? 05:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Huge backlog at WP:Requested moves

    The backlog at WP:Requested moves is quite extensive. I know some of these closes are difficult calls to make but could some admins see what they can do? Thanks in advance. –CWenger (talk) 05:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm taking a look, but if someone could have a look at Talk:Maoist Communist Centre of India that has experience merging page histories, I'd appreciate it. :) The Helpful One 11:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:2010–2011 Ivorian crisis

    I think the merge discussion here should be closed. Agree or disagree? B-Machine (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC) ‎[reply]

    User:Belchman

    Belchman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) At Wikipedia talk:IPA for Portuguese and Galician, Belchman persists that one user is a an anti-Spanish "POV pusher" [3] [4] [5] and that I am a "complete ignorant" (also in difs) These labels seem designed to provide an excuse to discount those who disagree with his proposed changes [6]. I've asked him to be more civil [7], and Jaume, the accused "POV pusher" has asked him to retract the accusation [8] but Belchman persists. Looking at his talk page, it seems that Belchman has had some issue with civility in the past. Perhaps he needs another reminder. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 03:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppet unblock review

    This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI).

    Please look for it on that page. Thank you.


    I have moved this discussion to the more trafficked ANI, which will hopefully lead to more input from the community about this unblock. Cunard (talk) 07:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    A-Class Reviewer needed

    Resolved
     – Wrong forum. --Rschen7754 20:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HJ Mitchell, the reviewer for the Frank Buckles article, is having computer problems and is "unlikely to be able to get back to the ACR before the 28-day window is up". If another A-Class reviewer with military experience could give the article a look-see and then re-review the article here, it would be appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nick-D is going to be the substitute reviewer. If anyone still wishes to give the article a quick once-over and let me know of anything that needs fixed, please feel free. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And this is on the administrator noticeboard because... --Rschen7754 06:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    ...HJ Mitchell is an admin. Mjroots (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the special qualification of admins that makes them more eligible as A-class reviewers of a MILHIST article? Is it that the admin force is our closest equivalent to a military force, or is because admins are often said to have lower content standards? Hans Adler 14:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 March 21, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 19#Category:Television episodes by director, and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 2#Islamic Golden Age

    For files, would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 March 21#File:Thomas Hines.jpg and Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 March 21#File:Basil W Duke 2.JPG?

    For categories, would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 19#Category:Television episodes by director and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 2#Islamic Golden Age? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Three-week backlog at WP:MFD

    There is a three-week backlog at WP:MFD. Would a few admins help clear it? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it OK for a Wikipedia editor to systematically remove hundreds of links to a particular website? For example, this appears to be a working list.

    If you look at the history of the hundreds of links that are in the process of being removed, you can see that they were given neutrally by completely unrelated Wikipedia editors over many years.

    The site in question has been discussed three times on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and each time the community decided that there was not a reliability issue with the website. Furthermore, it should be noted that the site does not appear on the spam blacklist.

    Disclosure: I have a relationship with the site that the Wikipedia editor is removing links to and so I want to make it clear that I have not made any edits, nor am I proposing to make any edits to the associated Wikipedia articles. I am not posting in the capacity of a Wikipedia editor, I am merely bringing this matter to the community's attention so the community can decide if this behavior is appropriate.

    (I'm new here, so if there's a more appropriate place to raise this question, please let me know and I'll repost there.)Vrsti (talk) 06:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see a problem. The website may be borderline reliable, but there's no requirement to link to it.   Will Beback  talk  07:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I do see a problem, as User:The Anome appears to be systematically removing these links. If he replaces them with better sources I have no problem with it, but something like [9] or [10] is not improving the encyclopedia. Is there some discussion where consensus was reached that this is not a reliable source, which could overrule those wp:RSN links given by Vrsti? Yoenit (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How can 300-plus neutral Wikipedia editors over many years be so wrong and one editor over the course of a few days be so right?Vrsti (talk) 07:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Have you asked The Anome why he is systematically removing links to your site? MER-C 07:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Requesting advice from a neutral body seemed like a more appropriate approach. This didn't seem like a purely editorial issue because it doesn't pertain to a Wikipedia article or even to a handful of related Wikipedia articles. This seems to be more of a unilateral meta-decision that impacts hundreds of Wikipedia pages and the work of hundreds of different Wikipedia editors.Vrsti (talk) 08:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I notified Anome of this discussion, also I tried to find a conversation which started this mass deletion but it seems to have been unilateral from the very start. Buttercrumbs (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=424654692"