| Revision as of 17:05, 30 November 2012 editPhil Bridger (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers48,792 edits →Other users who endorse this summary: +me← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:43, 30 November 2012 edit undoDicklyon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers476,479 edits ←Redirected page to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/AptevaNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| To remain listed at ], at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the ''same'' dispute with a ''single'' user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 03:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: <tt>{{CURRENTTIME}}, {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)</tt>. | |||
| ---- | |||
| *{{user3|Apteva}} | |||
| ---- | |||
| ''Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. '''All''' signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to ].'' | |||
| :''See also ].'' | |||
| ==Statement of the dispute== | |||
| Apteva has been on a ] anti-en-dash (and anti-]) ] since August 2012. Although he has failed to gain ] at every ], ], and ] his theory that the MOS is in error about en dashes, he keeps saying that the edit warring will continue. Several of us have told him that we interpret that as a threat, but he persists. This has been a disruptive 3 months, and shows no sign of letting up. | |||
| === Desired outcome === | |||
| We desire that Apteva stop the anti-en-dash and anti-MOS behaviors; no new RMs to remove en dashes from titles; no new move reviews to review RMs that close against his theories about en dashes; no new proposals at the MOS to challenge or change the consensus about en dashes; limited, as opposed to dominating, comments in RMs that others initiate about dashes, about the applicability of the MOS in styling in titles, and related topics. Generally, Apteva should learn to get the point, respect consensus, and work collaboratively instead of "my way or the highway". | |||
| === Description === | |||
| Since September 24, Apteva has been pushing theories that proper names never have ], e.g. that airport names never have en dashes, that comet names never have en dashes, etc., and that ] is in error encouraging usage of the en dash, e.g. in its examples of ] and ], and further that the MOS has no role in styling article titles. | |||
| === Evidence of disputed behavior === | |||
| He started by dominating the RFC discussion at ] () and at the ] (), especially in his section, in each case posting more times than the next two or three contributors combined. This was exasperating. He finally swore off posting at ] for a while, but this did not last, and he continues to post attempts at rebutting those who disagree with him. | |||
| At many points along the way, he would collapse (hide) sections that expressed the views of others, especially when they tried to tell him he was being disruptive. and are examples (in the latter one, he recommended that I file an ] about him, which I'm finally getting to). He changed comments of others, like my complaint about him . It is notable that another tendentious editor was recently blocked for such "censorship by {{tlx|collapse}}" behavior during a similarly singleminded style campaign (against diacritics), at ]. | |||
| Dicklyon had extensive discussions at Apteva's talk page about Apteva's behavior and theories. Apteva had asserted incivility and toxic and such{{clarify|reason=Huh?}} about some discussions at MOS, but never explained what he meant, which seemed to be that people were not letting him have his way. In the middle of October, he filed complaints at ] about Dicklyon and Neotarf there, and then when they got no traction. He copied one of my notices about his AE complaint to , filing a complaint against himself, essentially, and the followed it up with a complaint about JHunterJ that ended up ] for his own hackish ]. Not all of this was about en dashes, but it was all bound up in his anti-MOS campaign. | |||
| On 14 November he made several controversial moves to remove en dashes from article titles; these were in airport names, some of them articles Dicklyon had previously moved to have en dashes in this, per MOS guidance, and where Apteva knew he had no support from other editors: , , , and more. | |||
| He has started and lost numerous ] discussions to remove en dashes from titles; after losing, he took them to ] to try to get the closes overturned. See in particular and . | |||
| He has pretty much exhausted all possible ], and has found essentially zero support among other editors for his idiosyncratic theories (with the exception of Enric Naval on Comet Hale–Bopp for the ]). Instead of accepting the outcome, he remains defiant about the MOS being in error; see . | |||
| After losing the RMs and MRVs, he started a "my way or the highway" section at ], and in that section has continued to assert that the MOS is in error and that edit warring over en dashes in titles will continue until it is "fixed". Several editors have told him that comes across as a threat, yet he re-asserts it . | |||
| === Applicable policies and guidelines === | |||
| {List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct} | |||
| :#] | |||
| :#] | |||
| :#] | |||
| :#] | |||
| :#] | |||
| :#] | |||
| :#] | |||
| === Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute === | |||
| (Provide diffs of the comments. As with anywhere else on this RfC/U, links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.) | |||
| ==== Attempts by certifier Dicklyon ==== | |||
| :# Started discussion on Apteva's talk page | |||
| :# Started another discussion on Apteva's talk page | |||
| :# Started another discussion on Apteva's talk page | |||
| ==== Attempts by certifier SMcCandlish ==== | |||
| <!-- Please replace "C2" with the username of the second certifier.--> | |||
| :# Raised behavior issues with Apteva's WT:MOS re-re-re-proposal against en dashes | |||
| :# Responding to Apteva's post on my talk page about his behavior (discussion since refactored to ]) | |||
| :# Raised behaviorial issues with Apteva again at WT:MOS in response to his allegations of being "personally attacked" whenever someone disagrees with him | |||
| ==== Other attempts ==== | |||
| :# | |||
| :# | |||
| === Users certifying the basis for this dispute === | |||
| ''{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}'' | |||
| <!-- Please note: If you did not try and fail to resolve the dispute, but agree with the summary's presentation of events, please sign in the next section. Remember to notify the subject, via his/her talk page, that a conduct dispute has been raised.--> | |||
| :# ] | |||
| :# ] | |||
| === Other users who endorse this summary === | |||
| <!-- If you agree with the summary's presentation of events but did not try and fail to resolve the dispute, please sign in this section. --> | |||
| :# ] (]) 12:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :# ] ] 13:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :# ] (]) 17:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Response== | |||
| ''This section is reserved for the use of the user whose conduct is disputed. Users writing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section, and the person writing this section should not write a view below. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but no one except the editor(s) named in the dispute may change the summary here.'' | |||
| {Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it.} | |||
| Users who endorse this summary: | |||
| # | |||
| ==Views== | |||
| ''This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. '''All''' signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to ]. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.'' | |||
| ===Outside view by ExampleUsername=== | |||
| {Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views.} | |||
| Users who endorse this summary: | |||
| # | |||
| ===Outside view by ExampleUsername=== | |||
| {Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views.} | |||
| Users who endorse this summary: | |||
| # | |||
| ==Reminder to use the talk page for discussion== | |||
| ''All'' signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to ]. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.<!-- | |||
| Do not comment below. Please read the instructions above. | |||
| --> | |||
Revision as of 17:43, 30 November 2012
Redirect to: