User talk:Vanished user 8376539/Enforced break

I wanted somewhere to put this that's out of the line of fire; I've had more edit conflicts today than I've had in my history on Wikipedia. Anyway, on to today's main entertainment: enforcing a break. Is there any way we could propose a enforced break from the capitalisation/ colon debate for a month or so at least? Can we prepare some form of agreement for proposal that would mean nobody could start a debate for this time? The main argument for continuing this discussion seems to be that people believe we're furthering Wikipedia's mission by trying to reach a consensus. However, after taking some time out of the loop (before today), I can see how damaging this is to our progress; circular discussion means we all get more stuck in our ways, comments get more ridiculous, and we never get anywhere. We need some time off. I know plenty of editors agree, but after today's media attention, we're falling back into the same debate, and new editors, who have not necessarily read the old history thoroughly, are becoming embroiled. If we can enforce time off, we'll be ultimately helping the cause, and hopefully some time for everyone to rationalise, hype to go away, and more solid evidence to be collected. Anyway, enjoy my tranquil area, and I'd love to hear your opinions (on enforcing a break. Not on the letter "i". In fact, don't use the letter "i" unless it's vital; there's a challenge!) drewmunn talk 12:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I think this issue is going to escalate since it is now in the public eye (thanks to XKCD). Fortunately, this may mean outside commentary that can conclude this issue. I hope that the editors who have been involved all along will at least step away as this happens. Comment once or twice and be done with it, please. The key to an editor's sanity is to diversify one's portfolio so one can just walk away from a given topic. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I squished them all with a whale. Foolish Tooks! This needs to be taken down asap! We look like fools and just feed the "Wikipedia is stupid argument" MisterShiney    ✉    17:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers for the whale! Meanwhile, I agree it needs to be taken down, but the root of the problem also needs to be addressed. Erik's started a process that'll hopefully deal with the current content, which is excellent. However, is there any way we can stem new ones being created when old ones are taken down? Else poor Erik, and the rest of us, will have to carry on creating speedy closing requests. drewmunn talk 17:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, it plays a little to our favour that people have been adding to the post-closing discussion. That'll keep the original RM on the talk for longer. If we have to revert to using the no more than 1 RM on a talk page thing, then we'll have longer to use that reason to keeping RMs at bay. drewmunn talk 17:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I still don’t think that rule applies to closed RMs, but in this case I think we need to enforce it for sanity’s sake. No more moves until enough time has passed for the previous ones to be archived. Even with people mistakenly posting under them and delaying the archiving. —Frungi (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with that. Let's see the result of Erik's request, and hope things quieten down before we get as far as even more RMs. drewmunn talk 18:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Per the WP:AN request, Nyttend has speedily closed the new RM discussion. If there are follow-up requests to move, I'll be bold and close these citing Nyttend's closure as precedent. Everyone, don't waste too much time commenting on the talk page. Most of the influx won't linger. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the other editors here (I will, for certain) will back you up if you do. If that gets contested, we can work something else then. For now, most of the debate on this matter has died down or been closed by Nyttend. There are a couple of lingering discussions, but hopefully the IP contributors will lose interest in the next few days; xkcd will release a new comic on Friday, so that'll slow new visitors being directed from his homepage. drewmunn talk 20:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

-Rocks back and forth on chair- Not sure how much more of this I can take. If I had known editing would be so stressful....lol. MisterShiney   ✉    21:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I, for one, wouldn't mind seeing Star Trek into Darkness locked to all editing for a while, presuming the compromise lead remains, since it's not unlikely we'll see more IP trolling but also because Trek fans, even among registered users, can get a bit ... emphatic, shall we day. I don't think any of us want to have to keep going back to it day after day. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's protected a little, but what we really need to do is tranquillise the over active contributors. Anyway, I've just finished watching Africa, so I'm off to get a drink and get depressed by the news. I'm not even going to think about this any more tonight; I'll come back tomorrow and take a look at what's happening on the main talk, and see if anything can be consolidated or closed. Until then, I bid you farewell! drewmunn talk 22:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Post Move
So, what do you all think about the move? I'm not sure it'll last (not that I'm unhappy with the outcome), but it seems a little odd that he did it boldly, and then blocked reverts. I'll also hazard a guess that the admin arrived there via xkcd, and I'm not sure he read through all of our prior debates on the matter. I'm aware that I'd probably let it lay (it's the outcome I want), but I don't want to show favouritism just because it's the result I'm after; if he's out of order, then it should be moved back. drewmunn talk 06:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Having just read through the full talk page, it seems an RM was started again for it, and the move may be off the back of that. The admin who moved had clarified COMMONNAME is above MoS, and that was the basis of the new RM. However, the RM was never closed, hence his bold actions. The fact that I was only away from the board for 8 hours suggests that there was little chance for anyone (other than Scjessey) from the original RMs to comment. Result; if you feel the move was wrong, you could oppose it (the RM is still open) and you'd have grounds to move it back. However, from the evidence in hand, I think it's clear that there's reason for a capital I. It's possible xkcd did us a (Trojan) favour! Shame about all the extra hassle though... drewmunn talk 07:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I dislike Mackensen's brazen conduct especially after his emotional comments on the talk page, treating the situation as an utter travesty that blights Wikipedia beyond belief. He took unilateral action as an admin and bypassed page protection to make the call himself. Still, I can't say I don't oppose the move. If we went back to the first RM discussion, it would have made sense for the closing admin to state "no consensus" but also establish the status quo as the title we see the most, leaving the door open for reevaluation based on new evidence. Hindsight, ya know? :) Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 10:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Whilst I am happy with the move, I do find it surprising that it has been done and can't help but wonder how this will affect the article as it would seem that like last time a consensus had not been reached. He acted Unilaterally as Erik has said. Will also be interesting to see how it effects Wikipedia as a whole with the whole under 5 letters thing. Will be interesting to see. I just cant believe one of the users who came in off the back of it insulting everybody had the nerve to whine on my talk page saying he was "glad I was semi retired" took a lot of self restraint not to report their ass. MisterShiney    ✉    18:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)