This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Apostle12 (talk | contribs) at 05:10, 15 May 2011 (→Statement by Apostle12). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Requests for arbitration

Franklin child prostitution ring allegations

Initiated by Wayne (talk) at 17:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Involved parties

• WLRoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Phoenix and Winslow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MONGO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Apostle12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Will Beback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bilby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Phoenix and Winslow
• MONGO
• Apostle12
• Will Beback
• Bilby

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• WP:RSN
• Article Talk page. New section
• Article Talk page. New section
• Article Talk page. New section
• Article Talk page. New section
• WP:RFC/U
• WP:FTN
• Article Talk page. New section

Statement by WLRoss

This case revolves around some disputed edits, the behaviour of Phoenix and Winslow specifically and to a lesser extent the behaviour of editors WLRoss (myself), MONGO and Apostle12. The edits in question can be seen here and here. The dispute has gone on since January and there have now been three noticeboards instigated by Phoenix and Winslow to have the edits excluded as conspiracy theory and despite all failing, partly due to the low number of uninvolved editors and partly due to a general rejection of the edits being conspiracy theory, he continues to reject the edits in their entirety. Bilby has been included despite minimal involvement as he has commented in support of the edits and Phoenix and Winslow has since specifically accused him of stalking and giving such support in that context.

Phoenix and Winslow’s behaviour throughout the dispute, his behaviour since the closure of the WP:FTN, the canvassed support of MONGO; who has just posted: You've repeatedly attempted to turn this article into some delusional fantasyland of far out bullshit...it is a HOAX…that sort of misuse of Misplaced Pages ultimately will get you blocked or topic banned or both (with the edit comment “Get lost”), along with their repeatedly stated intention to delete and rewrite the article to also exclude long standing material added by other editors, has indicated that Arbitration may be the only way to resolve whether the proposed edits (and also related current content) are conspiracy theory or legitimate context and also determine what is acceptable behaviour by the involved parties. If this case is accepted for arbitration I will supply specific diffs to illustrate Phoenix and Winslow’s behaviour and of editors attempts to work with him.

Response to statement by Phoenix and Winslow

Although I will participate if required and abide by any findings if my behaviour is in any way at fault, I do not believe mediation will resolve this dispute as Phoenix and Winslow's editing behaviour indicates he is unwilling to accept that he has in any way been unreasonable. Content is only peripheral to the main dispute which is Phoenix and Winslow's behaviour. Phoenix and Winslow's refusal to accept reliably sourced content on the basis it "may" be used by conspiracy theorists (see examples here), editing against consensus when it is gained, his adding at least two outright lies to the article and reverting to keep them in, adding unreferenced text to unrelated articles to support edits in this one and his insistance that edits have 100% consensus with the exception of deletions for what he considers are policy violations has led to his effective ownership of the page. As shown by my diffs above, editors have attempted to accomodate Phoenix and Winslow's concerns and work with him without success. I was hoping that a decision on content would lead to constructive collaboration. I do have to respond to several claims Phoenix and Winslow has made here. To my knowledge I have not reported this case to the NPOV noticeboard (or any other). The claimed unanimous support from previously uninvolved editors at the WP:RSN was not unanimous and resolution was only achieved after Phoenix and Winslow canvassed editors, who unanimously support him. I accepted that they were responding in good faith and accepted the resolution. In regards to my favorite source, I rarely used it and then only when supported by primary sources (Phoenix and Winslow has even claimed that this source has added material to the primary sources to support his case). I am not familiar with Arbitration and if this is the wrong venue for editor behaviour, please suggest an appropriate solution.

Response to statement by Bilby

I agree with his statement. I recognise his minimal involvement but felt the stalking accusation was serious enough to require attention. Please accept my apology if inclusion was not warranted.

Response to statement by MONGO

I fail to see what my 911 editing articles has to do with this case when my editing in that area has never been an issue. Did I upset someone by being a NPOV editor who often wins 911 content disputes? Is this why MONGO has developed an interest in other articles I edit? I also fail to see how the Grand Jury findings, the state government investigation findings and the working brief given to the Franklin Committee can be considered disinformation, fringe or undue weight. I have gone out of my way to exclude fringe material no matter how well sourced, even when it meant agreeing with Phoenix and Winslow. MONGO has even personally checked the sources and found them to be legitimate yet he still refers to garbage sources I have not used to discredit through misdirection. I also fail to see how my making two more edits in four years than Phoenix and Winslow has made in five months indicates ownership on my part, I made 57 edits in those five months compared to Phoenix and Winslow's 103 edits. Wayne (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with verifying the sources and encourage it, what I object to is continuing to falsly claim I'm using unreliable sources when you have personally checked their legitimacy. Wayne (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Response to statement by uninvolved NuclearWarfare

Agree, a mediation Cabal may be able to give direction. I understand the WP:TLDR issue. I bent over backwards to keep this a content issue to avoid getting Phoenix and Winslow sanctioned but I find it impossible to ignore continual accusations and misdirection directed at me in place of intelligent discussion regarding the problems with or merits of edits. Failure to respond could be taken by some to be an admission of guilt. Unfortunately I also have a passion for detail and as I am used to proof-reading University papers, find long detailed replies easier to understand than short replies. I do try to be brief and always cut down my drafts before posting, for example my original opening statement was 2,497 words so I had to trim it a bit. Wayne (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Response to statement by Arbitrator Jclemens

I'm unclear on the reference to problematic BLP content. Virtually all the disputed edits are sourced from the Grand Jury presiding judges decision, The findings of the States investigative committee and from legal affadavits. I believe these comply with Misplaced Pages's three core BLP content policies. While the reference actually used is a self published website that has scanned copies of the originals, the original sources are available and have been checked for accuracy by an editor (MONGO) who opposes the edits but are not available to read online unless individually purchased. The self published source is only used to allow the originals to be read for free. If the self published source is unacceptable, then the originals can be linked to again, as they were before an opposing editor (Phoenix and Winslow) introduced this website to support his own edits. Wayne (talk) 08:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Response to statement by Arbitrator SirFozzie

There has been no finding on whether there actually is a WP BLP issue. Legal advice is that there are none in regards to Bryant but WP has not even addressed whether a higher standard applies to it's own policies. Now that the article history has been deleted, which prevents the BLP problems being seen, this will result in the original issues not only flaring up again but becoming worse now that another problematic editor is involved. If BLP is the problem it must be addressed. Wayne (talk) 07:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Phoenix and Winslow

The Arbitration Committee cannot resolve content disputes. Essentially, this is a content dispute. WLRoss has also skipped some intermediate steps in dispute resolution, notably mediation. While I would welcome the committee's attention to the tendentious editing, POV-pushing, WP:WEIGHT violations and general WP:FRINGE behavior on the part of Apostle12 and WLRoss, I do not believe this case is yet ready for the committee's attention. I'm not sure what it is that WLRoss finds objectionable about our behavior, other than protecting Misplaced Pages from becoming a resource gathering point for WP:FRINGE theorists, which is apparently where he's trying to go with this article.

WLRoss has also reported this case to at least one noticeboard (the NPOV noticeboard), where he got no support. I reported it to the Reliable Sources noticeboard, where I got unanimous support from previously uninvolved editors to disqualify the favorite source being used by Apostle12 and WLRoss. Since then, they have done their very best to introduce the same material in support of WP:FRINGE theory by other means.

I've also reported it to the Fringe Theory noticeboard, where both WLRoss and Apostle12 have responded with such an enormous torrent of obscuring details that no uninvolved editor wants to become involved. I suggest that mediation is the best step at this point and if WLRoss refuses that, or refuses to comply with the results, we can move to the next step in dispute resolution. This is premature. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Bilby

I'm very surprised to see myself listed as a party here - my limited involvement came through WLRoss, who I had interacted with on Hey Dad..! and still had his page watchlisted . When I saw the RFC/U request on his talk page I had a look, as it didn't seem to fit with the WLRoss I'd spoken to before, and I knew the editor who raised it. I chose not to get involved, as I didn't feel I would be helpful due to an ongoing low-level dispute with Phoenix and Winslow. After it was closed as uncertified and moved to the Fringe noticeboard, I checked in.

As no substantive comments by anyone beyond the involved parties had been made, I made a total of three comments: , , . My concern was that there were extensive accusations, but that there was no evidence provided. The only diff was from WLRoss , and it seemed insufficient to prove anything either way. So I asked for diffs in the hope of having something concrete for editors to discuss. None were provided.

I have not edited the Franklin child prostitution ring allegations article, and have no intention of doing so. I had no involvement in the RFC/U, and no involvement on any talk page related to this - the three diffs constitute my full involvement.

However, as I have been included here I will note three things.

1. The lack of diffs will make this very difficult to evaluate. This may be because this sort of problem doesn't come down to isolated points, and is instead an issue of emphasis, which makes it difficult to show individual problematic edits.
2. At the end of the Fringe noticeboard discussion, it seems the issue from P&W was that WLRoss and Apostle12 relied on the same sources as those used by conspiracy theorists, although the sources themselves seem to be mainstream.
3. I'm not sure where this can be solved. An RFC/U was not possible. I'd be concerned that uninvolved editors would be unwilling to take it up in an RFC, for the same reason that they didn't take it up at the Fringe noticeboard . But maybe we'd be lucky. I'd expect formal mediation to be worth a shot, though - my one experience in that process was positive. My main concern, per NewYorkBrad, is that this seems to be a significant BLP problem - thus extensive delays in process may not be in anyone's interest.

I suppose I should respond to the stalking allegations: as can be seen here, I have never edited any article where P&W was involved outside of the ugg boots topic, except some anti-vandalism work on Barack Obama. Outside of mainspace, the only non-ugg boot related discussion in which I am aware of having made comments connected to P&W is this one . My dispute with P&W is entirely centred on the one topic, and I have no desire to see that extended.

Statement by MONGO

WLRoss (talk · contribs) and Apostle12 are facinated by fringe theories. I thought this facination was limited to 911 related articles, where WLRoss has for years been an advocate for increased coverage of fringe topics in violation of the undue weight clause of NPOV. Phoenix and Winslow must have tracked WLRoss's contributions and seen the many disputes WLRoss and myself have had on 911 articles, and contacted me asking for my assistance on the Franklin article. It was a revelation to see that WLRoss was POV pushing fringe material in violation of undue weight at an area outside the realm of 911. WLRoss and Apostle12 have made the Franklin child prostitution ring allegations article a coatrack for their conspiracy theories. One has no idea where the reality is and the vast majority of (dis)information available is from self published books (that consequently fail to be reliable), self published websites and unauthoritative works much akin to the type of disinformation books that are written to pander to those that wish to believe in the preposterous, or at the very least, unsubstantiated....seemingly not caring that these sources are unreliable overall, they have insisted they be used for the references in this article nevertheless. The have cherry picked the flimsy evidence to ensure their conspiracy theories are vastly overrepresented beyond the weight they should be given, and buried this article with nonsense, violating our BLP policy and a few others. However, what you have here is a content dispute and besides a few heated exchanges and accusations, nothing severe enough to warrant arbcom action. I would think that the best thing for this article would be to delete it and start over.--MONGO 07:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

If anyone OWNS the article, the edit count indicates who that might be here--MONGO 08:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)...WLRoss claims Phoenix and Winslow is trying to OWN the article...baloney...until Phoenix and Winslow tried to clean it up, WLRoss and Apostle12 had their coatrack the way they wanted it. The uptick in WLRoss's edit count on the article since the beginning of this year was because he knew his and Apostle12's page was being questioned by Phoenix and Winslow, and they moved to block any alterations that would lessen where they wanted the emphasis to go.--MONGO 01:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

WLRoss...is unable to read...I stated it was a revelation to me he has been promoting fringe theories at an article unrelated to 911...if I was wikistalking his edits I would have already known that. WLRoss just doesn't seem to get it...verifying the sources was standard operating procedure since the sources he was using were alledged newspaper copies posted at a blog that has helped to perpetuate the fringe material he supports...so naturally Phoenix and Winslow and I wanted to make sure the newspaper sources were the same, comparing the blogs to the originals. The issue is still the problem with weight...he wants more weight given to fringe theories while myself and Phoenix and Winslow want less or zero...thats why this is a content dispute. However, if arbcom opts to take the case, this will prove an interesting learning lesson for those that persist in engaging in efforts to perpetuate mythology over reality....something WLRoss has done now at at least 2 different and unrelated articles.--MONGO 01:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thinking that with the deletion by Flonight, and the recreation of a stub by NW that if there are now enough watchful eyes on this article, arbcom isn't needed. I'm not interested in providing much if any diffs showing behavior issues of anyone, including myself, since I have limited time and want to spend it editing elsewhere. Is the goal possibly to set some sort of generalistic principle on COATRACKING...if so, then there must be a 100,000 articles that could be impacted.--MONGO 04:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Apostle12

I have not commented to date because, frankly, I find it emotionally draining to respond to the repeated, unwarranted accusations made by Phoenix & Winslow and Mongo, many of which are repeated here. My interest in this subject has never been directed by a desire "to right great wrongs," nor am I "fascinated by fringe theory." My sole desire is that the several facets of the Franklin case be accurately represented in the Misplaced Pages article so that readers might gain some appreciation for what transpired--to create, in other words, an NPOV article.

Toward this end, I have attempted to edit the article without any presumption that I know exactly what happened in the Franklin case, or that my own personal leanings are necessarily correct. I have not seen this dispassionate approach mirrored by Phoenix & Winslow and Mongo, who repeatedly insist that they DO know exactly what happened. I am particularly at odds with their self-righteous tone, their accusatory manner and their willingness to distort the record whenever their version of what occurred in the Franklin case is challenged by indisputable facts.

Writing the article properly can only be accomplished by referencing articles from the Omaha World Herald, the newspaper of record for the State of Nebraska. This newspaper followed the Franklin case from beginning to end, and the content of its articles constitutes the most reliable source for writing the article. Unfortunately roadblocks exist that prevent easy access to these articles. They cannot be accessed directly online, to purchase copies of the articles (especially if one were to desire a complete set of the 700 or so that were published) would be inordinately expensive, and the only website that has posted complete texts (or actual photocopies) of the most relevant articles has been disallowed.

I cannot justify the expenditure of thousands of dollars to purchase a full set of the relevant Omaha World Herald articles. I also cannot afford to make the writing of this article my full-time job, nor do I possess the emotional reserves for unending conflict with editors who are committed to preventing full exposition of the complexities that attend the Franklin case.

I may check in from time to time, however my involvement in writing the article must be significantly curtailed for the foreseeable future. Apostle12 (talk) 05:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by NuclearWarfare

Might I suggest that a referral to the Mediation Committee/Cabal might be appropriate if Arbitrators are unwilling to take this case? I have glanced over the discussions a couple of times, and one of the key issues is that several of the parties have become expert at making tl;dr statements at the drop of the hat, which prevents meaningful outside input. If outside input is going to be impossible, guidance from a mediator to cut to the heart of the matter (in less words) might be useful, both for the parties and for uninvolved editors looking to comment. NW (Talk) 17:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

A couple of administrators (FloNight, Jehochman, Will Beback, and myself) over the past week or so have taken appropriate action, I think. The article has since been deleted and recreated as a stub. I think the dispute has simmered down for the time being because of that, and no Committee action is necessary for the time being. NW (Talk) 06:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by AGK

In relation to the comments above by NuclearWarfare, I confirm that the Mediation Committee would accept this request if a majority of arbitrators had recommended that it be referred to mediation, and if the parties consented to mediation. As an obiter, I would add that this is a very worrying and potentially incendiary matter. If I were the Arbitration Committee, I would handle this request very carefully.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 21:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

As an interim measure I've attempted to clean up the article of BLP violations by removing any content that appeared to lack reliable sources. Jehochman 21:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Collect

Even if this appears to be a "content issue" I suggest that ArbCom seriously discuss the point at which an article becomes such a morass that it ought to be placed as "hidden" until such time as the content clearly becomes entirely proper per WP:BLP rather than have improper content hang on in public view. I further suggest that this is the precise type of article for which such a Coventry-solution might be reasonably imposed (that is to say, placing the article "in Coventry"). I realize that this position is neither "inclusionist" not "deletionist" but is rather one of establishing a Hippocratic basis for the project which can be placed as a new guiding principle for committee decisions. The potential wording would be on the order of

Biographies of Living Persons and articles which specifically relate to living persons should under no circumstances be used as a means of improperly damaging any person. Such articles damage not only the person so attacked, but also the encyclopedia itself. In general, it is better to be cautious in placing damaging claims in articles than to include every damaging claim available about any person or impacting any living person or persons. Collect (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Will Beback

Overall, this may be one of those cases where well-intentioned people are trying to right great wrongs, perhaps forgetting that we're just here to write an NPOV encyclopedia. This topic is marked by passionate editors. I commend Jehochman's stubbing, which could have gone even further. There are some reliable newspaper sources for this topic, but also some unreliable sources including a self-published book, a book from a dubious publisher, and a documentary which was never aired possibly because it's so defamatory. I've repeatedly recommended mediation, and I don't see any other solution aside from remedies like 1RR.   Will Beback  talk  03:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by FloNight

I first took notice of the Franklin article approximately a week after the request for review was made on the FNB. The discussion was long and topic was too complicated to understand with a quick look but there seemed to be serious problems. Yesterday and today, I finally had time to do a more extensive review of the current version of the article, recent versions, and the earliest ones. I found that there were too many instance of inaccurate statements when compared to the references for the article to remain on site. It was too difficult use a conservative method of cleaning up the article history so I deleted the article as enforcement of the BLP policy. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• Recuse. Salvio 11:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/2/0/1)

• I see we had a RfC/U that was deleted for lack of certification, although the admin who deleted it reminded a party that they should still take on board the suggestions therein. Looking for thoughts (both from parties and those uninvolved in the larger dispute) if this could be solved short of Arbitration (say on a wide-ranging article RfC), or if Arbitration is necessary. SirFozzie (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm thinking of a radical idea here. Complete stubbification of the article, with the case being accepted, with a view to rebuilding the article post case. SirFozzie (talk) 01:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
    • For the record, I applaud the actions taken by Jehochman and FloNight. On articles that have the potential to do such harm as this one, I vastly prefer NO article to one that does not comply with the letter and the spirit of our BLP policies. As things stand, I am going to vote decline. SirFozzie (talk) 06:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
• I'll look into this in more detail tonight or tomorrow. My initial reaction is that this article is an open invitation to an ongoing BLP disaster, and that I'm tempted to summarily delete the whole thing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Accept to consider all aspects of the matter. The user-conduct on this article raises some significant issues on which we can provide guidance. Based on the history, I see little likelihood that any other form of dispute resolution will resolve this dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• Can see it is a vexed area definitely.Neutral eyes are good. We do have a some noticeboards which might cover the area, including Content noticeboard and Reliable sources, the latter might be good to give a flavour of weighting etc. Given lack of wider input thus far, I'm leaning decline for the time being. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• Given the nature of the content issue, I'm not seeing why the committee needs to be involved here. The committee's previous messages regarding problematic BLP content should provide enough guidance for uninvolved administrators to deal decisively with inappropriate content and its contributors. Jclemens (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• Accept, pretty much per both Brad's comments. This may offer a good opportunity to examine the "trial by Misplaced Pages" aspects of some BLPs.  Roger Davies 07:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• Accept. Appears to be a standing behavior issue and an opportunity to examine a recurring BLP theme. Cool Hand Luke 03:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Hyphens and dashes

Initiated by Tijfo098 (talk) at 11:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Tijfo098 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Too many to list in a few minutes, but what I'm asking for does not a require list, I think.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style#ArbCom notice

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Many ANI threads. For instance,
  • Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive689#Issues_with_User:Kwamikagami
  • Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive222#Topic_ban_proposal_concerning_the_lame_.22Mexican-American_War.22_hyphen.2Fen-dash_dispute
  • Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Move_war_over_typography_of_en_dash_versus_hyphen
  • Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Moratorium_on_hyphen_page_moves
• Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style#Hyphen vs. en dash moratorium proposal

Statement by Tijfo098

Hardly a day goes by now without one or more threads at ANI about hyphens or dashes. These threads usually confront editors from some field where hyphens or dashes are not used for common terms (jargon) of the field vs. MOS-focused editors. Conflict arises when MOS-focused editors copyedit various technical articles to replace the common spelling in that field with the MOS-mandated one, e.g. high dynamic range imaging vs high-dynamic-range imaging or small-cell carcinoma vs small cell carcinoma. Probably the silliest variation on this is the hyphen vs en dash war where a hyphen is replaced with an en dash, like the one on Mexican-American War vs Mexican–American War or push-pull configuration vs push–pull configuration. The editors involved in the Mexican~American article came very close to being topic banned en masse at ANI. A moratorium proposal to cease making such edits was rejected practically by both sides at WT:MOS. I'm requesting that ArbCom pass a motion imposing such a moratorium until the matter is settled in the current RfC at WT:MOS.

Reply to iridescent: I think I've been clear above that I'm not asking ArbCom to decide what the MOS should contain. I'm asking for a temporary injunction that will hopefully halt the daily ANI threads. The MOS content is being discussed in a RfC, which is advertised on WP:CENT. But if you, iridescent, think the current (and practically permanently edit-protected) MOS version has consensus beyond those who make MOS writing and enforcement their main Misplaced Pages endeavor, you have clearly not read any of those ANI threads, (WP:MED for instance doesn't agree with MOS) or you have prejudged this, and should recuse yourself. Also, I volunteer to be the sacrificial lamb and be topic banned from making any hyphen/dash changes if that is necessary for a long-term solution in this matter. Believe me, I won't lose any sleep over that. 13:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Link to MOS content RfC. 13:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

To Roger Davies: Yes, a motion is what I'm asking for, that's why I'm not naming any (other) parties. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Me nods deeply to Newyorkbrad, who seems to have temporarily abandoned WP:Bradspeak. :-) 21:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement Gerardw

Premature. There is a current RFC in progress at MOS which is reasonably civil. The lameness at ANI is caused as much by editors going on about how lame it is as by the participants in the discussion.

Moratorium enforcement Can part of the explicit or implicit moratorium include the understanding that if some hapless editor, not party to these discussions, wanders in and moves a page with one of those punctuation mark things in it (out of ignorance), they will be treated with kindness and gentle explanation that we're not moving those pages right now? Gerardw (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Collect

Sometimes material which is in the De minimis category seems to attract fervent "true believers." In one corner, we have Misplaced Pages traditionalists, who suggest that, since editors use ordinary keyboards, that Misplaced Pages articles should only expect articles to contain characters easily produced on such keyboards. In the other corner we have "typographers" who feel that, since mark-up allows use of characters not found on keyboards, that therefore such characters ought to be used in articles to produce typographically correct results. This might be a "content dispute" but I think it is far closer to the innumerable "date disputes" heretofore heard. I can, unfortunately, see "font disputes" coming around the bend. Thus, I suggest it is time for ArbCom to handle this quickly and by motion, stating that the "x-dash", "y-dash", "z-dash" edits be deemed intrinsically disruptive to "collegial editing of encyclopedia articles" and specifically enjoining editors from making such edits to enforce "typographical standards." Or, on the other hand, to declare that Misplaced Pages should, indeed, enforce "typogaphical standards" and enjoin editors from using ordinary keyboard hyphens. Just choose and get it over as soon as possible. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Baseball Bugs

Collect states it well. This is one of the stupidest battles I've ever seen here, especially because there is no benefit to the reader. Whether a title has a hyphen, a dash, a space or a semi-colon-comma, it still shows up in the search box just by typing the words. There needs to be a decision on the "right" way to do this, and put an end to this nonsense. In the meantime, NO ONE should be moving articles for the sole purpose of screwing around with hyphens and dashes. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Canuckian89

Agree with Collect and Baseball Bugs. This seems to be one of the lamest battles on Misplaced Pages. Dashes, hyphens, whatever, someone needs to put a stop to all these pointless edit wars and moves. Canuck_{My page}, 12:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by previously uninvolved BilCat

While these discussion have been underway, User:Tony1 moved a page on my watchlist, alomng with several others, from titles with hyphens to titles with en-dashes. Can we get an injunction about making such moves while discussions on the issue are underway? As to behavioral issues that ArbCom usually deals with, responses by Tony to my warning on his page were responded to with comments here and here on my health and ability to edit. This is grossly insulting behavior in an effort to bully me into dropping the issue. Regardless of the effect my health my have on my editing, the health disclaimer on my talk page is solely intended to deal with timely respones, and not an excuse for other editor to attempt to humiliate others by conjecturing on the "health-stress" of other users. - BilCat (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Tony and I have settled the health remarks issues at ANI - he meant no offense, and I accept that now. - BilCat (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Tony1

My comments to BilCat's on his health were a bid to understand why he was being so aggressive towards me. I meant no offence, but he was clearly very angry and uncivil towards me; I'm sorry about that, but he has continued to be angry despite my undertaking (twice) to move no pages. On the substantive matter, it should be decided at WT:MOS. Given the circumstances, I have no objection to an injunction on changing hyphens to en dashes and en dashes to hyphens in article titles until debate on the matter at WT:MOS has come to a resolution. (The editing of the MoS is not at issue, by the way; the MoS has been pretty stable for quite a long time.) Tony (talk) 12:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by slightly-involved SarekOfVulcan

I see that some of the parties involved in the current kerfuffle were previously topic-banned over DDL, as mentioned below. Maybe this should be considered an outgrowth of the same principles? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

@SirFozzie - I already !voted for "topic bans for all", so I don't see a problem with that.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved RegentsPark

I agree with Collect above - I'll probably throw up if I see another hyphen - dash move request :) I understand Elen of the roads expressed concern below that this is really a community consensus thing but something clearly needs to be done. Perhaps arbcom could place a moratorium on random discussions, changes and move requests, while also setting up a procedure for getting consensus if that's something within its brief? --rgpk (comment) 13:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Ohms law

There is still ongoing discussion about this, primarily at WT:MOS. The community can handle this just fine at this point, as long as people quit running off to other forums, and other people quit freaking out. The starting of threads at AN/I, and the behavior of people at AN/I, has been the most disruptive factor here. I'd hope that this would be simply closed in order that the community can continue to work towards a solution in this area, but if the consensus is that "something must be done" (which is what it appears is going on) then please try to keep that "something" to a remedy that has a small footprint. A moratorium on page moves involving hyphens and dashes may actually be constructive at this point, since that's what seems to be generating so much angst.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 14:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Please note that discussion continues at WT:MOS. I really feel that the less involvement by admins and arbcom the better, here. Let the community work for a while, with the full realization that arbcom is still here if things really do break down spectacularly. The way that I see it, we're (slowly) working our way towards an RfC already, we just needs time to get there. Everyone just needs to take a breath and relax is all (especially those on AN/I who seem to enjoy screaming that "this is so lame". I blame that for this landing here actually, since that attitude obviously makes many people feel defensive).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Thryduulf

I've not been at all involved with this, and have very little opinion about hyphens vs dashes, but as others have said this appears to have all the hallmarks of the date delinking saga (including some of the same names) - editors at MoS agreeing to something locally and then implementing it and continuing to implement it while there are (heated) discussions ongoing, attempting to create a fait acompli situation.

I would recommend the arbcom place an injunction on all editors that prohibits the moving of any page for the purposes of adding, removing or changing the type of short horizontal line in the title. This would apply in all circumstances except:

• When there is a clear consensus on the talk page of the article concerned, or
• When there is a clear consensus at the wikiproject level to move explicitly listed articles, when the discussion has been advertised on the talk pages of those explicitly listed articles.

I would also prohibit all users from using any automated tools to add, remove or change the type of short horizontal line in the article text without a specific consensus on the talk page of the article concerned.

This would apply to all editors across the site until such time as:

• the community have come to a clear consensus about the way forward, and
• the arbitration committee agrees that consensus has been reached

Any editor breaking this injunction would be subject to 1 warning, and after that blocks of up to 24 hours in the first case, up to 1 month for a third offence and up to 6 months for any subsequent offence.

I would not be averse to the committee investigating the whole MoS culture and/or framing these restrictions so that they can be applied again should a similar pattern of behaviour emerge about fonts or any other MoS aspect. Thryduulf (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Thryduulf (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The date delinking case is being frequently brought up here. For those that weren't around at that time, it can be found at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking or via the shortcut WP:ARBDATE. Thryduulf (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

to SirFozzie: If the arbcom emplaces the moratorium on moves as most people are requesting, then there will be two possible outcomes as I see it:

• All editors respect the moratorium and all arbcom have to do is formally say "We agree that the community has come to a consensus about this issue and encourage everyone to respect it." and lift the moratorium (optionally thanking people for respecting it). (Obviously only when consensus has been reached)
• Some editors respect the moratorium and others don't. Those that don't respect it are subject to community/AE blocks for not doing so (depending on how the moratorium is worded), possibly (but hopefully not) leading up to a full arbitration case should they persistently not respect it. When consensus has been reached the arbcom make a statement and lift the moratorium as above, optionally thanking those who did respect it.

I don't think anyone is really asking for a full case (at least at this stage) just an enforceable motion. If you would in future prefer motions not related to existing cases to be requested differently to full cases, you'll need to develop a place and process for that (although I personally don't think it's worth it others may not share this opinion). Thryduulf (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Septentrionalis

This is part of a long-standing pattern of disruptive behavior by a minority of editors, who are acting to impose forms which is neither consensus nor usage.

• There was a discussion on WT:MOS, some months ago now, which showed widespread disagreement with the present practice about dashes; in particular, it discussed the form of Mexican–American War as neither required by MOS, nor usage, but imposed by the whim of a few editors. I made a move request to see what the rest of Misplaced Pages thought.
• The move request was 8-2; Tony and Noetica were the two. As far as I can tell, now or then, their only argument was that this should be discussed at WT:MOS, not at a talk page (although they were themselves discussing it there at the same time. In the process, both of them called the move request illegitimate (only Tony used that word; Noetica objected to a discussion anywhere other than WT:MOS. 03:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC))
• It was closed move by consensus. Three days later, contrary to all the customs of our move requests, Dicklyon and Kwamikagami made another move request, the results of which were that only the four of them supported the dashed form. Tony called the first closing admin corrupt, on the grounds that he voted in the second move request.
• CWenger requested a move of Battles of the Mexican–American War, on the simple ground that subarticles should be consistent with the main article. The four of them opposed this. It was closed, long overdue, by a non-admin, who followed the majority; Noetica and Kwamikagami have move-warred against this.
• Enric Naval also suggested that the corresponding category be moved to match the article, expecting this at least to be a speedy close. Noetica and Dicklyon opposed this, too. Dicklyon went so far as to claim the first RM was no consensus, when it had already been closed as consensus - he supplied no link for the closing admin. This is at least calculated to deceive, and I have called it a falsehood; I don't think I have called it a lie.
• All four of them have revert-warred in the text of the articles
• Noetica and Dicklyon have repeatedly declared that the "only" solution is to reverse the consensus move of Mexican-American War, In short, this is a minority which intends to continue to be disruptive until it gets what it wants. I see other examples of the same pattern are being cited by other comments. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I would therefore appreciate it if ArbCom would consider a topic-ban on the four of them. Without this perpetual entrenched battleground, the discussion would go a great deal more easily. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I support a moratorium; I have supported the proposal for one. I also support an RFC in a more formal structure (the User RFC page should be adaptable) as Scientizzle suggests. The present free form RFCs cause several of us to repeat ourselves (and even be asked to repeat ourselves) on the same page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. I see that Noetica claims to have arguments and evidence, not yet presented; again. That has been, perhaps, the most often repeated claim in this discussion; Noetica has been saying such things for more than a month now; the arguments and evidence have never been presented, at the move discussions, at MOS, or anywhere else. I will believe in them when they appear. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I applaud and agree with llywyrch. The ideal MOS would both address questions which the community agreed needed answers and would answer them by consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I strike the request for sanctions; the behavioral problem seems to be abating.

But I join in the several requests that ArbCom clarify policy: in particular I join in Thryduulf's request above, that ArbCom investigate the culture of MOS. Ohm's Law, an otherwise rational editor, has now All four of these have, I believe, subscribed to the notion that MOS is some sort of law, which can be "enforced", "violated", or "subverted";

Note to iridescent

The present text of MOSDASH is stable because MOS has been protected for some months. It is not clear: two editors, CWenger and Hans Adler, in this long discussion have changed their minds over what it means. It might therefore help if ArbCom decided what it does mean. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Requests for clarification

• Procedural:Is the discussion here, and in many following sections, what ArbCom has in mind whne requiring an RFC? If not, would they indicate what format they do have in mind? (If it is something like an RFC/U, we can either state positions, and see who signs on, or discuss several questions.)

• Substantive: The discussion of the first proposal is stalemated over what are essentially policy questions: Is MOS a set of rules or a set of advice? Should it be based on usage, or the opinions of editors? and so on.

It would help to settle this matter if ArbCom would decide (not what policy ought to be, but) what policy now is.

This edit clearly states one side of the case: having the implementation of a guideline be subject to WP:Consensus is "radical", and having MOS use language parallel to WP:COMMONNAME, which is policy, would be equivalent to deleting it. The advocates of this position exist under different policies than the rest of us; if ArbCom will not make a determination on this, who can? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Beyond My Ken

It would be very beneficial to the community to have this settled, but I don't see where it fits in with ArbCom's remit, unfortunately. I would think a moratorium on changing from one form to another, and a centralized RfC would be the best path to solve this extremely lame dispute. If ArbCom could see its way clear to a motion supporting or manadating a moratorium, I think that would help significantly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion by Scientizzle

ArbCom won't rule on content. But how about ArbCom lending its weight to a community-derived discussion of a resolution? Here's a suggestion that can utilize the authority of this board with the necessity of a proper discussion process.

• A centralized RFC is created to address, specifically and exclusively, the utility of hyphens and dashes in titles...that is, don't talk about behavior or biases, just the grammar and accessibility questions.
  • The RFC should be left open for an extended period of time (2-4 weeks?), advertised on the major boards and relevant talk pages, and perhaps via site editnotice.
  • I'd suggest that the major players in this dispute collaborate to produce clear, concise statements (i.e., two paragraphs at most, for realsies) on the preferred solutions and the perceived advantages and disadvantages of each preference; these should be presented upon the opening of the RFC to help focus discussion.
  • Perhaps threaded discussions can be limited to the talk page of the RFC in order to streamline the consensus-gathering process as well?
• A moratorium in placed on hyphen-dash moves until the RFC is complete in order to reduce the general agitation associated with this dispute, enforced via Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
• The RFC is closed at a set time by a small set of Arbs who will also provide some detail as to how they've come to a collective evaluation of the community's present consensus.
  • This could come with the weight of possible future ArbCom Enforcement actions being levied against those that continue this dispute post-RFC by making contentious moves against community consensus.

I know this is just asking for some bureaucracy complaints; I'm typically very much anti-bureaucracy, but the standard discussion methods have failed spectacularly and I'd rather have the content question answered with some force than see topic bans or blocks over the continued escalation of this philosophical battle. A wide net can be cast with this type of RFC, bringing in voices beyond the regular disputants. A determined consensus either way is of obvious value to future editing; a "no consensus" closure could be similarly useful in that it can, in effect, proscribe any broad renaming or WP:MOS standard on the topic, leaving only localized discussions to determine a given article's name conventions. — Scientizzle 16:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by CWenger

Most readers will not notice whether an article uses hyphens or dashes, particularly for the less common usage in disjointed compound adjective, e.g. Michelson–Morley experiment. However, they will notice blatant inconsistencies, namely within an article and between closely related articles. In the interest of ensuring that Misplaced Pages presents itself as a respectable, professional encyclopedia, I therefore ask that the ArbCom make two rulings that seem common sense to me:

1. The content of an article should match the title of an article. Anybody making edits that conflict with this (e.g. in the Mexican-American War article, changing "Mexican-American War" to "Mexican–American War") should be treated as a vandal, much like somebody reverting WP:ENGVAR.
2. If a main article is moved (e.g. Mexican–American War to Mexican-American War), the move of a subarticle should be uncontroversial (e.g. Battles of the Mexican–American War to Battles of the Mexican-American War). Anybody contesting such a move should be compelled to make an argument against the move that is distinct from the move of the main article, and closing admins should boldly enforce such a standard regardless of the votes.

–CWenger (^ • @) 17:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

To clarify point #1 above, given Newyorkbrad's comments below, vandalism is probably too strong a word. What I meant to convey is that I think it should be dealt with the same as vandalism, i.e. steadily sterner warnings and eventual blocking if the editor does not adjust their behavior. And I should have been more clear that this would apply only to those who are intentionally and knowingly creating a conflict between the typography of the main article title and its content. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by sort-of-involved Fetchcomms

("Sort-of-involved" as in I've participated heavily in the latest AN/I thread but that's about it.)

There are two "camps" here: the outsiders who think this dispute is ridiculous and makes Misplaced Pages look like a playground for small children; and those passionate about the MOS being followed as precisely as possible.

WP:LAME, regardless of how much anyone wants to argue that these minute typographical details are so important to them. Despite being a very detail-oriented person/perfectionist, I think it's obvious that all the arguing is wasting everyone's time. It would make sense for all the parties involved to invoke IAR in that hyphens where dashes "should" be does not affect readability and that takes precedent over a perfectionist MOS.

I've also seen people argue that, if it's OK to mismatch hyphens and dashes, then it's OK to remove all punctuation because they're only little pixels—despite this being funny and an incorrect analogy, I think the attitude being exhibited is not conducive to building the encyclopedia because, well, nothing's being built.

I'm not sure ArbCom stepping in will be useful at all—date delinking, anyone?—but I have seen complaints about user behavior at AN/I (with one user in particular being blamed by multiple other involved users), and I think ArbCom dealing with that would of course be more helpful. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Noetica

Amended statement: This is my final edit in this discussion. On reflection, I strike out all that I say above. I declare that I will have no more to do with this ruinous dispute that drew me out of a blissful Wikibreak, nor with any related interruptions to the orderly work of the Project. I will reflect further on how much involvement I want with Misplaced Pages as a whole (if any), and post on that shortly at my talkpage. Noetica 01:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by trying-hard-not-to-be-involved Llywrch

Background: I have tried hard to stay away from the Manual of Style -- either to contribute or even to use -- for the reasons illustrated in this dispute. My comment about this dispute can be expressed simply: Is my memory faulty here, or wasn't one of the reasons a Manual of Style was advocated, once upon a time, was that it would reduce the number of disputes? If my memory is correct, then wouldn't it be wise if the strictures of the MoS was confined to those points either where consensus is clear, or the larger Misplaced Pages community concurred that some decision about a specific point of style, good or bad, was needed? -- llywrch (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by involved party Dick Lyon

I'm as appalled as anyone that the discussion about such things can get so nasty. Pmanderson hasn't yet apologized for saying that I "lied", and I don't expect him to (but it would be nice if he stopped denying it at least, since he's been shown the diff a few times). I'm only involved because I tried to resist a declared campaign to do away with a "contemptible" MOS by ignoring it. Pmanderson likes to say that I "invented" the rules for how to use the en dash; but I follow the MOS and present sources to back up the interpretation. I've remained relatively calm in the face of his persistent personal attacks over this silly issue.

As for what to do, Noetica makes sense. If it's an issue of what should be in the MOS, discuss it there. If it's an issue of whether to have an MOS, or the extent to which to follow the MOS, have that at an appropriate venue. Pmanderson caused a huge ruckus by taking his fight to Mexican–American War and requesting a move unnoticed by many who would have preferred to respect the MOS. The resulting improper move and inconsistent naming has motivated the mess from there. Let's stop it, discuss, and decide which way to straighten it out. If behavior problems continue when we try to discuss it centrally, maybe we'll have to invoke some RFC/U or something, but it seems unlikely at this point that we should be at Arbcom. Dicklyon (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose – (do I get to chime in here, or is this section just for arbcom?) The vast majority of moves to make title comply with WP:MOS are uncontested, noncontroversial, and moving wikipedia in the direction of consistency with guidelines. Vocal complaints from a fringe element who don't know what an en dash is and yet seem to care a lot should not be a reason to stop normal editing progress so broadly. There should be a more narrow moratorium on move warring; or an agreement that moves that are contested should be rolled back until this is settled. Dicklyon (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Very Involved Uploadvirus

First, let me throw out a mea culpa - I (embarrassingly) admit I have been guilty of some extremely bad behavior during these events, which have been going on for many months and in many areas of the project. Furthermore, I w ill be happy to accept whatever reasonable penalty the community wants to impose on me for what I said in anger and frustration. Over the next day or two, I will offer a more detailed explanation of my behavior and post voluminous evidence in mitigation, because my research has revealed what I am convinced is some exceptionally serious Wiki-misconduct that has taken place repeatedly and nearly incessantly for nearly two straight years. During that time, absolutely no discipline has been meted out, while I was threatened with block within mere minutes after posting some very uncivil comments. Now no doubt my conduct was absolutely reprehensible and nauseating. HOWEVER, and with all due respect and in no way trying to minimize the foolishness I displayed, I would suggest that my conduct absolutely PALES in comparison to the long-term disruption and severe transgressions I refer to on the part of these others, and absolutely ZERO has happened to them. It's just surreal, IMO.

For now, though, I'll just emphasize that one of the things that has enraged me the most throughout is that now there are literally MANY THOUSANDS of improper (subjective opinion) and inconsistent (objective opinion) titles, text, links, templates, etc., all "created" extremely quickly by a very small group of extremely prolific "hyper-movers", who have in the past have refused to fix any of these problems ... even problems they admitted they caused, and were wrong to cause.

No matter which way this issue turns out (hyphen/dashes/etc.), these few editors have created an ugly mess of GARGANTUAN proportions that really needs to be cleaned up ... and that chore should, IMO, be undertaken largely by those who created this mess. I am more than willing to do my part and more, but the job will take tremendous effort, and in the meantime, "my area" (in the sense of me as frequent contributor) is an embarrassing shambles, where before, I was proud of it and enthused about busting my hump to make it the best place to come IN THE WORLD for info in these subjects.

Sincerely, and with best regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 02:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC) User:Uploadvirus

Statement by Art LaPella

The proposal is a moratorium on dash-related page moves, so I'm not sure we need to air all our dirty laundry. It's probably more relevant to say that I have often made such page moves but nobody complained; that argues for making sure such a moratorium is temporary. But if you would rather have me tell you which editors rub me the wrong way, I could do that too. Art LaPella (talk) 04:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved DeCausa

(...although I posted on the AN/I thread.) Concur with Collect and Sarek of Vulcan. This is largely a behavioural issue. There is no reason why it should have blown up into this shambles except for the inability of the involved editors to act reasonably and come to compromise and/or drop the stick. What underpins this is a dogmatic "true believer" approach to such issues - as can be seen by some of them in this thread still posting their "beliefs" - although some have mea culpa'd. Sarek has noted that some of the involved editors were previously topic-banned over DDL. These are the wrong people to be involved in this issue and they should be topic banned from this. I believe a different set of editors would be able to resolve this petty point. DeCausa (talk) 08:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by neutral Avanu

To those who would arbitrate this, I would like to draw their attention to the conduct of many of the editors in the various so-called dispute resolution processes. I say it that way because although I have much faith in Wikiquette Alerts, Administrator's Noticeboard, and so on, some editors in such places seem to be more intent on punishment and power flexing than in resolution of conflict. It is my strong belief that had civil conduct been strongly enforced and positive resolution been strongly encouraged, you would not see this problem at your door now.

My initial attention to the hyphen-dash conflict was first brought about via these dispute resolution forums. And eagerly I went in, thinking how wonderful and helpful I could be. For a long time I took no position, just trying to encourage levity and a light-hearted approach to this dispute. At a certain point however, I felt the need to ask an Admin to step in and help the editors by serving as a positive role model and guide. This plea was met with hostility and a very stressful outcome, not necessarily due to the Admin alone, but the chorus of negative voices that seem to frequently feed at these dispute resolution places.

Since that time, it seems that these editors, rather than working to seek compromise, solutions, and peace, instead seek to namecall, ban, and belittle. I realize that its more than obvious that the hyphen-dash discussion is an esoteric and somewhat peripheral issue, but the lack of civility by those who are standing up to promote dispute resolution is appalling.

The reason the hyphen-dash editors cannot resolve their conflict is that the Manual of Style doesn't explicitly cover these particular issues. So they fall back on reliable sources, logical reasoning, and best guesses. But if the reliable sources conflict with one another, what does a reasonable editor do? There's nowhere to really go except AN/I or WP:MOS, and if AN/I is filled with a lot of supposedly 'uninvolved' people who are just throwing stones.... how does that help? The solution here is twofold. First, a specific ruling in the MOS about these specific uses of dashes and hyphens, and second, a firm finger waggling at AN and the admins in general about conduct and civility. People shouldn't be afraid of asking for help. -- Avanu (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by mildly involved Blueboar

The underlying issue here is a conflict between two ways of viewing what the MOS is. On one hand, we have those who view it as "advice" - informing editors of the style practices that Misplaced Pages consensus prefers (but does not mandate) . The other is that it is "the rules", something that must be followed and enforced. This difference in how the MOS is viewed affects how the various editors involved in this dispute think style disputes should be resolved. The "advice" advocates think that style disputes should ultimately be settled by consensus, and have no problem with ignoring what the MOS says if there is a consensus at the article level to do so (or to put it crudely, Consensus "trumps" the MOS) The "rules" advocates think style disputes should be settled by reference to the MOS, and that the MOS "trumps" consensus at the article level. This difference of opinion sets up a conflict between guidelines... with each side pointing to different guidelines to support their view (the "advice" side pointing to WP:CONSENSUS, and the "rules" side pointing to WP:MOS). So... I would suggest that before we can address the issue of dashes vs hyphens, we must first address the underlying issue of "advice vs. rules". Blueboar (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Count Iblis

I was wondering if an ancient ArbCom ruling regarding a dispute between William and SEWilco about the formatting of references applies here. That would then suggest that in terms of "advice vs. rules", as Blueboar puts it above, ArbCom would support the "advice"-wiki ideology. Count Iblis (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Note that this is the sort of problem where the WP:Government could help. Count Iblis (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Deryck

As an uninvolved administrator who has been following the locus of this dispute, I would like to advise members of the ArbCom that the underlying issue is a pure content dispute. While it may be sensible for the ArbCom to hand out temporary injunctions to prevent further move-warring over hyphens and n-dashes, I can't see any possibility through which the issue can be settled other than through resolving the MOS dispute itself, which is a content dispute and therefore beyond the ArbCom's jurisdiction.

The large scope of articles that will be affected this dispute reminds me of the 2005 vote over Danzig vs. Gdańsk, except that it's worse this time. We do need to settle this dispute about hyphens and dashes once and for all, however ArbCom aren't the right people to do it. --Deryck C. 15:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved FT2

Big picture: Since Misplaced Pages is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" it is important that those with technical writing skills do not accidentally discourage those who do not focus on MOS style detail by letting MOS be felt as a "cudgel". Equally, users who are not technical MOS editors should avoid accidental OWNership and resentment, when others with more technical know-how try to improve their work to the most modern community standards. Sometimes the style standard deemed most suitable for general use can conflict with the perceived best practice in specific topic areas. It should not be beyond the wit of the community to reach consensus on what should be done when this happens. (Perhaps MOS could note that discussion may be needed before applying MOS to an area where it is claimed a different standard is better or more normal?)

The main aim of MOS is to improve consistency, readability, and quality. It does not speak to core content - neutrality, verifiability, notability. So we can afford to avoid the appearance of BITing (caused by treating MOS changes as matters to be forced through at whatever cost), and we can go easy when there is an issue, by submitting them to broader RFC when an MOS dispute happens.

Arbitrability and benefit of arbitration: What makes this MOS dispute arbitrable and also worth arbitrating is that the clash between MOS based approaches and what might be called "casual" or "lay" styling (without disparagement) is a routine source of division and dispute that has flared up previously (date delinking) and will again. I would sadly not be surprised if there were also a small minority using MOS to further their own beliefs, by pushing for MOS to take a stance, and then seek to enforce that stance across all articles.

While I don't see any individual sanctions as useful here, the broader principle might be worth a look at, to give the community some guidance on what is expected when these principles, policies and guidelines clash. Perhaps not for hyphens alone (!) but this is just the latest in a number of MOS related disputes, of similar etiology. It is well within Arbcom's traditional role to provide such guidance. Perhaps if the case was accepted on that basis, it would be a quick matter and participants could be asked to limit statements to points of principle and practical considerations related to that issue, rather than the personalities and actions of this present debate. Then maybe we could all go home. If accepted I would suggest making this clear by renaming to "Manual of style". FT2  20:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Rschen7754

Misplaced Pages:State route naming conventions poll may be an interesting read as this was a similar situation, and this resolved the situation that was at a stalemate. If you go this route though, please structure the poll a little better than a 16 year old (myself at the time) did. --Rschen7754 09:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/1/1/7)

• Comment only at this stage. Are you really sure you want this brought here at this stage? Arbcom is not the Misplaced Pages Governing Council, and an Arbcom case will explicitly not be coming down in favor of one side or another, but will examine the conduct of all those involved. The closest parallel, Date Delinking, was explicitly about the disruption caused by the more enthusiastic advocates on both sides of the debate and the use of automated tools to bulk-change and bulk-revert, not about the merits of linked vs unlinked dates.

  It's not Arbcom's place to rewrite the Manual of Style, which is effectively what you're asking for. (Since the current wording of WP:MOSDASH is completely clear and reasonably stable, a moratorium on editing articles to comply with it would be a de facto instance of Arbcom unilaterally imposing a change to the MOS.) While I think there's an extremely good case to establish a separate council with the power to impose binding RFC closures in cases like this, it's not what Arbcom was elected to do and nor are its members particularly well qualified to take decisions of this nature.

  I'm more than willing to accept a case to examine the conduct of all those involved in this mess. Frankly, judging by the tidal waves of stupidity which have been washing back and forth across ANI and WT:MOS for the last couple of weeks, such a case is likely to take a huge amount of time, and be very unsatisfactory for anyone involved; WP:RFAR/DDL took five months to come to a decision and resulted in a huge stack of bans, blocks and restrictions for all those involved, including those who initially brought the case. Are you sure this is a firecracker you really want to light? – iridescent 12:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

  Re Sarek: WP:RFAR/DDL was explicitly about bulk changes, which (as far as I'm aware) isn't the case here. – iridescent 12:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

  Re Tijfo098: A temporary injunction would mean a de facto rewriting of the MOS by Arbcom fiat, whether you think it is or not. Since the Featured article criteria demand MOS compliance, a ban on editing articles to comply with the MOS would bring Misplaced Pages's assessment processes to a halt unless the MOS were rewritten to include an "ignore this part" disclaimer.

  This isn't about "sacrificial lambs", it's about preventing your squabbles over this issue from wasting the time of those not involved in the dispute to the extent that it becomes disruptive. As those who were there for the date delinking case know, it's not going to be a pleasant process and I again strongly suggest you (plural) reach an agreement amongst yourselves rather than bringing this here so early on. – iridescent 13:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see a link to the RfC. I strongly strongly urge the community to develop a way to get a consensus of sorts like was done for some other contentious areas. Really. I echo Iridescent in that a case will not be pleasant, and sanctions for aggressive proponents on both sides possible. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

  A link was provided to Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style#Hyphen vs. en dash moratorium proposal. Since that's a page which all those (few) editors who actually have an opinion on en-dashes can be presumed to be watching, and it's been heavily linked on the various drama boards, I think in this case it's reasonable not to demand a formal RFC as well, given that it would be the same people saying the same things. – iridescent 12:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

  If this is as divisive as date delinking, and it does appear that way, I think a formal RFC should be undertaken by the community, and they should use the date delinking RFC as a model. The date delinking RFC was a rehashing, but it did prove to be conclusive whereas prior (less formal)RFCs/discussions hadn't. John Vandenberg 08:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: @Iridescent - I do seem to recall some objection to the use of AWB. I do think that while ARBCOM clearly cannot say "use a hyphen" or "use an ndash" - it could I think order up a community process to decide what the community wants, and make that binding. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: ArbCom will not be deciding the underlying issue. In practical terms, we can take a case, which will likely be long and nasty; issue liberal quantities of bans, topic bans and restrictions; and ask the community to forge a solution via an RFC. It seems to me that people will probably prefer to cut out the middleman (and the risk of sanction) by moving swiftly and collegially towards developing a community solution. If a motion prohibiting page moves helps provide the impetus for this, I'm happy to draft one.  Roger Davies 13:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - agree with Roger - I'd prefer an injunction prohibiting page moves while the community finds a solution. PhilKnight (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Does anyone see any resolution of an ArbCom case that wouldn't end up in "Trouts for all" or "Topic Bans for all?". SirFozzie (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • Much of the user conduct surrounding this issue has been wretched. All editors who have used excessively strident rhetoric in discussing this issue, or have otherwise acted obnoxiously, should stop doing that.
  • An RfC or the equivalent to resolve the editing dispute is clearly necessary. Comments are invited regarding whether the current RfC is likely to lead to a resolution, or whether a different form of RfC (different wording, more publicity, etc.) is necessary. If there are disagreements regarding this, they should be sorted out now. If essential, this Committee could undertake to supervise some form of final dispute resolution in the area, but that is a last resort.
  • Pending completion of the RfC or equivalent per above, no one should be moving articles based upon dash/hyphen naming disagreements. We can pass a formal motion adopting an ArbCom temporary injunction against such moves if this is really necessary. I hope it will not be.
  • The comment above that anyone creating a hyphen-dash mismatch between an article title and article text should be treated as a vandal, is not well-taken. Vandalism is defined as intentional damage to the quality of the encyclopedia. There is a plausible argument that in some circumstances, an article title should contain a hyphen even though the text title creates an en-dash: namely, that editors typing an article title in the search box or in a link almost invariably use a hyphen, and if the article title is with the en-dash, the resulting redirect creates a loss of functionality when linking to subsections within an article. I do not say this is a sufficient argument to win the debate, but it is an argument that can be made in good faith and therefore takes the issue well out of the "vandalism" category.Retracted as outdated; see my talk. Newyorkbrad (talk)
  • Despite the above, one thing that I think everyone can agree on is that article titles that are disputes between a hyphenated version and an en-dashed version should have redirects. To the extent any are absent, these should be created.
  • As a perfectionist and nitpicker myself, I can understand why people might feel strongly about this issue. Nonetheless, the seemingly endless strife about "the length of short horizontal lines" is the sort of thing that, when taken to unreasonable extremes, can make Misplaced Pages and Wikipedians look ridiculous. Let's make a community decision and put an end to this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
• I'm leaning decline at this point — I see that Tony has started an RfC at WT:MOS and really attempts like that at a community solution should be fostered. I don't see how ArbCom can really ameliorate the underlying issues, and if there are other courses being taken I think those should be tried first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Fuchs (talk • contribs) 11:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • 'Decline at this point. Right now we haven't reached the last resort (us). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Recuse per user:jayvdb/recusal#AU --John Vandenberg 02:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• Accept per SirFozzie. It's probably high time we examined the extent of whether and how minutae of MOS interfere with the pillars. I'm seeing a lot of reluctance for ArbCom to take this on, but it seems to me like a better use of our time than onesie-twosie topic bans for POV-pushers that affect at most a few parties. Having said that, I don't mind being outvoted if the rest of the committee doesn't want to try and map this morass, but I consider the impact of tolerance (or lack thereof) for individual article differences to be a legitimate conduct matter inasmuch it provides a barrier to editing by those unfamiliar with its nuances. Is the consistency worth the learning curve? Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Injunction on article title disputes secondary to hyphen/endash issue

• There is to be a moratorium on article title changes that are due to hyphen/endash exchange. The only edits allowed will be to create a redirect to the existing article title until the resolution of the debate below.

• All discussions on the subject of En dashes in article titles discussion (interpreted broadly) are subject to civility and 1RR restrictions. Administrators are urged to be proactive in monitoring and assertive in keeping debate civil. Actions requiring clarification can be raised with the Committee on the appropriate subpage.

As there are 13 active arbitrators, not including 1 who is recused, a majority is 8.

Support:

1. support as nominator. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
2. support Jclemens (talk) 04:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
3. Support SirFozzie (talk) 04:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
4. Support  Roger Davies 07:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
6. Kirill  13:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
7. Provided this explicitly only applies to article titles. Unless a "hyphen only" policy is ultimately adopted there are going to remain good grounds for replacement in body text and references. – iridescent 13:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
8. — Coren  13:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
9. Risker (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
10. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
11. F'r godsake just stop for a minute. You're making me dizzy. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
12. PhilKnight (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Motion adopted. Clerk to post and notify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Motion

Interested parties are instructed to spend the next 14 days from the passing of this motion determining the structure of a discussion on En dashes in article titles to obtain consensus. Note that this can be the continuation of a current discussion or commencement anew. From that date, a period of six weeks is granted for the gathering of consensus on the issue. (If this motion passes, then dates can be clarified). The discussion should be of sufficient structure to allow easy quantification of consensus rather than a large amount of poorly-framed debate. If after two months, a determination isn't realised, a case will be opened and conduct violations will be dealt with severely.

As there are 13 active arbitrators, not including 1 who is recused, a majority is 8.

Support:

1. support as nominator. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
2. support Jclemens (talk) 04:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
3. Support SirFozzie (talk) 04:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
4. Support  Roger Davies 07:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
6. Kirill  13:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
7. Support, although this won't resolve the underlying issue of what WP:MOSDASH should say, how strictly it should be applied, and whether reformatting of body text between dash styles constitutes edit warring/disruption. – iridescent 13:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
8. Sufficient, if not perfect. — Coren  13:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
9. Reasonable place to start. Risker (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
10. Best to try and let the issue get sorted out this way before it becomes our problem. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
11. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
12. PhilKnight (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Motion adopted. Clerk to post and notify. Discussion should continue (here or in another appropriate central venue) regarding the means of implementation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments by non-arbitrators

Comment - while the above motion sounds like a great attempt to solve this, it places no one in the driver's seat for actually getting somewhere. These 'Interested Parties' need an administrator willing to enforce a structure upon them that they can all live with and simply saying they have 14 days to agree on some framework is unlikely to lead to consensus, since it requires something they don't have now (which is consensus).

What has been asked for for some time now, and what in this editor's opinion, is most needed, is a neutral and fair administrator who is willing to lay reasonable ground rules for these editors, setting up a situation that can be looked at later and be said to have been done in a fair manner in line with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. The motion above simply asks for things that have already been attempted before, and have not produced solutions on their own. So, I would ask for a volunteer from the admins who can shepherd this to its conclusion, not just an edict with an expectation. -- Avanu (talk) 08:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I think that some admins to act as facilitators is a very good idea. I will have a think and a look and welcome any uninvolved admins to look in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification – Are these motions to be interpreted as having been put into effect, due to the votes, or will we be notified when they are more than just motions? Because if the move moratorium is in effect, then I'm told that this move of mine violated it; I'll be happy to move it back if anyone objects to the properness of it or if the moratorium is in effect. Dicklyon (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Usually, it's when motions are posted to WT:AC/N and elsewhere, is when they take effect. Of course, that's not to give free range to everyone to "settle accounts" in the hours before a clerk posts it. SirFozzie (talk) 05:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; I have no account to settle, and I don't think anyone would object to this move; just normal maintenance. Same on Shack-Hartmann that I just moved to use en dash. Dicklyon (talk) 06:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I do object. These moves are controversial, and at least one of them is minority usage. The view that pushing one's POV is "normal maintenance" is unfortunately endemic at MOS. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought you had agreed to en dashes between pairs of names. And I had verified that they really are two names and really do appear this way in sources. The MOS says this is the way they should be. But I'll move them back anyway since you objected. Dicklyon (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.

I think this comment shows one fundamental problem; some editors read MOS and published style guides as making binary choices of require/forbid, when outside style guides frequently choose, and MOS sometimes chooses, between require/permit/forbid; the language I proposed permits the construction at issue, but not everything permitted is desirable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

Comment I think the current heat is not just about titles, but about article text as well. Titles generate more noise in some ways just because the process for changing a disputed title is much more heavyweight, but the ongoing disputes are in no way limited to titles. I think the "in article titles" should be dropped; hopefully we can just deal with all of this at once. Also, the way it is worded makes it sound like "conduct violations will be dealt with severely" is a threat to get folks to "realise" a "determination". Hopefully that is not the case. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

There hasn't been much fight about article text, with the exception of Pmanderson wanting to change Mexican–American War away from the long-time consensus version the conforms to the MOS. In the mean time, as several have pointed out, there is steady but slow progress on moving toward consistency according to MOS, and nobody is fighting it, as far as I'm aware. Am I wrong? Dicklyon (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

See CWenger's proposal in his own section above. The greatest part of the edit war that brought us here is the dash enthusiasts warring against article text matching its title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It's above my pay grade to make big changes to MOS, but as I've pointed out at WT:MOS#Style guides, current American usage is different from WP:DASH. That didn't bother me before, because I've never copyedited for someone who cared one way or the other, but since it's turning into a brouhaha, it's probably time to look at the style guides. - Dank (push to talk) 02:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You and ErikHaugen have both referred to this "brouhaha" or whatever it is. I haven't seen it; there's some discussion at WT:MOS, and there have been some fights about titles and moves, but I haven't seen any other problem with people following the MOS. Have I missed something? Dicklyon (talk) 03:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm referring to whatever it is that Arbcom feels is serious enough to warrant action. - Dank (push to talk) 03:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

As for article text, it would be pretty silly for an article titled “foo–bar baz” to refer to its own topic as “foo-bar baz” or vice versa, so I'd consider an edit which makes the text consistent with the title to be Good and one making the text inconsistent with the title to be Bad. ― A. di M.​_plé​ 04:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

14 days – I'll probably have to abstain from most of this approved 14-day process planning, as I'll be on the road, overseas, May 15-31, with probably limited time and limited access. Dicklyon (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)