Misplaced Pages

I don't think I can support that, Floquenbeam. I have very serious concerns about this person's attitude. Unless I see an acknowledgement that his swaggering arrogance and contempt towards O'Dea and his block of O'Dea were unacceptable here, we should relieve him of the bit. As it stands, I can't trust him to deal fairly with borderline spammers and vandals. I don't trust his judgement at all, and it amazes me you're willing to. Can I recommend taking a look at his three RfA's? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I am just giving my opinion, Anthony, I'm certainly not telling you what to do or what to think, i hope I haven't given that impression. Yes, I just finished looking at the three RFA's (including, in RFA #2, a promise to be open to recall if that RFA passed. but it didn't). Yes, I would have opposed all three. Yes, this incident gives me great pause, and if there was a reconfirmation RFA today with no agreement to stay away from this kind of block, I'd oppose. But there is a lot of good work he's done over the years, including good admin work, and I'm hoping some kind of trajectory other than the SchuminWeb or EncycloPetey cases can be worked out, so that we (Hex, and Misplaced Pages) don't mutually burn all our bridges. This does appear to be the only area I see problems in; if I could convince myself he won't do that one particular thing anymore, then I would consider his adminhoodness a net positive, and move on to find other more pressing problems more in need of solving. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a page somewhere that lists the blocks he's made? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Try this -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Or, more elegantly as a wikilink: Special:Log/block/Hex. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, that's prettier (I just looked at my own and then changed the URL) ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The following types of usernames are not permitted because they are considered promotional: Usernames that unambiguously consist of a name of a company, group, institution or product (e.g. AlexTownWidgets, MyWidgetsUSA.com, TrammelMuseumofArt). However usernames that contain such names are sometimes permissible; see under Usernames implying shared use below. usernames are acceptable if they contain a company or group name but are clearly intended to denote an individual person, such as 'Mark at WidgetsUSA', 'Jack Smith at the XY Foundation", 'WidgetFan87', 'LoveTrammelArt', etc.

Two inappropriate blocks in ten days. Hex, can you explain the rationale behind this block, and why you didn't discuss it with the editor first? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Given the username block and the 2008 block Flo references above I do think we need to hear from Hex or push this to ArbCom. NE Ent 14:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

My thanks to Floquenbeam, who is the only person to have had the common courtesy to alert me by email to the current status of this thread. I happen to be on vacation. My reply will be presented tomorrow. — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I alerted you on your talkpage when I un-archived the thread on 29 December 1 January. But if you're not interested enough to enable the "e-mail me when my talkpage is changed" functionality when you go on holiday with something like this pending, then naturally that's somebody else's fault (just like everything else). Bishonen | talk 21:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC).

Hex edited after Bish's notification so they should have seen the orange message bar. NE Ent 21:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This just keeps getting worse. KillerChihuahua 05:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply

I'll start by addressing the two blocks mentioned above.

1. At the time of the 2008 block I didn't fully understand about avoiding tools when involved in a content dispute. Subsequently, I did. You may also notice that I managed to accidentally pass 3RR on the same occasion. I've not done that since, either.
2. Looking at it again, the user name block was in fact incorrect. It should have been a spam-only block. Twehringer_thesociety (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s only contributions were to a spam article, The Society of Leadership and Success, an organization that they are the director of communications for. That article itself is, I now notice, a copy of the user space page User:NSLS92617/National Society of Leadership and Success, itself deleted as spam. That user name clearly alludes to the Irvine, California branch of this organization, and is a clear promotional name. I'll let somebody else deal with that. In this case, I evidently managed to conflate two block reasons — one of which I obviously misremembered. I'm not sure that I recollect ever making a user name-based block before, for that matter. I've now corrected the error on the user's talk page.

Now I'm going to have my say about what's been happening on this noticeboard. Whether you read it or not is up to you — if it's too long for you to bother with, that's fine with me.

Some of the participants here appear to think they're running a drumhead court martial. They're not. This is a kangaroo court; trial by auto-da-fé. It's certainly the first time that I've encountered somewhere that people are put into the stocks in the village square and then expected to account for themselves while being pelted with rotten fruit. Someone above uses the word bullying; what breathtaking hypocrisy. To pick another metaphor, shooting fish in a barrel is easy because the barrel is full of fish. This venue has managed to create the complete inverse by putting one fish in a barrel and surrounding it with gunmen.

I've been called out on mistakes before. When people have talked to me on a one-to-one basis — that's why user talk pages exist, in order for direct and efficient communication — I've always been more than happy to talk through and consider my actions. If the responding administrator had chosen to leave me a message (perhaps "I believe the block was bad and wrong because..., can you explain yourself and are you willing to lift it before I do?") then there would have been the almost complete certainty of a diametrically opposite conclusion to events in every respect. However, he chose the single most dramatic course (including instantaneously undoing the block with the marvelous comment "WTF?" - how indicative of a bona fide attempt to resolve an issue) and parachuting me into here.

With the exception of Floquenbeam emailing me, as I mentioned earlier, nobody has attempted to talk to me outside this obloquious vipers' nest. That does not include Anthonyhcole — the self-appointed Torquemada of this particular inquisition (who, incidentally, left me a talk page comment insulting me and calling other editors "morons" before deleting it a moment later — class act). Who is Anthonyhcole? Who knows. I'm not sure why someone that isn't an administrator would choose to hang around on what is ostensibly the administrators' noticeboard, unless they derive some sort of pleasure from having fights. It certainly isn't due to any formal role. Some people might respond to that kind of thing by digging through his record to try and have a mud-slinging match - much as he's decided it's somehow appropriate to present my RFAs as some kind of bizarre "evidence". I shan't descend to that level.

My penance is also apparently expected to contain replying to massive slabs of mistaken accusations based on conjection and assumption, long after the fact of my actions being undone and judged and my being given a public whipping. Even if I did, whatever I said can and probably will be challenged by every drive-by Joe McCarthy wannabe that feels like taking a pop because they're convinced they know the contents of my own mind better than I do. What a great use of time and effort. Not to mention the presence of people who apparently choose to latch onto discussions in this space in order to use them as a springboard for presenting their own personal conspiracy theories.

This environment appears to attract the officious in droves. Some are even so astonishingly self-important that they think, wrongly, that they can demand my immediate participation in this rotten caucus. Even after I've pointed out that I'm on vacation. And even threatening me with going to ArbCom if I fail to respond to their demands, in whatever pressing timescale they've conjured into existence. Presumably these threats of ArbCom involvement without prior formal dispute resolution are making the claim of the necessity of exception 1, "emergency action to remove administrator privileges"? That would presumably put me on a par with EncycloPetey, who Floquenbeam mentioned. I looked up the details of his desysopping, and frankly I reject the comparison.

I've only had the administrators' noticeboards on my watchlist for a few months, but have barely looked at them in that time. I now understand why I frequently see them referred to as "the drama boards". As of right now I'm joining the growing number of administrators that choose to ignore them. My talk page, as always, remains open. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that username you blocked was not a promotional username. Please read the quotebox just above. You got it wrong.

The kangaroo court above involves ten admins and ten editors in good standing. All we've been waiting for is an acknowledgement from you that your block and your treatment around the block of O'Dea was inappropriate. That's all.

I don't think you have the right temperament for adminship, I'm afraid. So I'm filing a request at RfA that they desysop you. I think this is such a clear case that it would be detrimental to the project to waste time on other processes. Perhaps ArbCom won't see it that way. We'll find out. I'll let you know when I've filed it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

If I was one to block for personal attacks, which I'm not, you'd find yourself blocked now, Hex, for the way you speak to Anthonyhcole above. Do you take WP:AN to be some kind of free zone where you get to say the first thing that comes into your head no matter how shitty it is? Or where you can express any amount of rudeness, contempt and ABF to anybody as long as they're not an admin? Because I notice there's a bit of a difference in the way you address the different categories of users in this thread: you speak reasonably civilly to the admins — within shouting distance of civilly, anyway — or, well, you avoid attacking them individually, anyway — while there's apparently nothing you won't say to a non-admin, from TL;DR to Torquemada. Therefore, I'm also beginning to think we should let ArbCom look at this. They may not indeed want to remove your tools for basically one bad use of them; but they should get a chance to sanction you just as a user, for generally appalling battleground behaviour. Then you can call them Joe McCarthy wannabes and tell them they must derive some sort of pleasure from having fights. Bishonen | talk 22:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC).

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Request_to_desysop_Hex --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

For the record, Twehringer thesociety is not a promotional name. It's a personal name. The person's name is Tracy Wehringer, and xyr electronic mail address, given on press releases by the organization concerned as a contact, is twehringer@…. It's rather sad to see a person who straightforwardly uses xyr own name and the organization that xe works for suffering for supposedly having a "promotional name". I hope that this doesn't apply to account names like Okeyes (WMF), too. Uncle G (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Conversion therapy

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

Could an uninvolved admin look at Talk:Conversion_therapy#WP:ARBPSEUDO? In short there is discussion to see if this article can be considered as part of the Arbcom decision and edits placed under 1rr restriction to limit the edit warring. Thank you. Insomesia (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

See also the still open discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Conversion therapy. Monty₈₄₅ 20:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't know that was going on. Insomesia (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:RM

What the heck is going on with this page's backlog? There are discussions from November that haven't been closed yet.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

October even (one of mine). Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

No snark being slung at Ryulong for even suggesting something should be done about this? Guess being an admin (or at least not being TenPoundHammer) gets you more leeway when it comes to signposting excessive backlogs. 31.6.19.194 (talk) 08:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey look! This here edit above is 31.6.19.194's first and only edit? I wonder who he could be? It couldn't be an editor who comes here and demands that things be done, could it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an admin?—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

A pertinent observation! Backlogs happen, this is the holidays -- perhaps the ping will help, but in end, it'll all get done eventually. Salvidrim! 09:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Shhh. What 31.6 clearly knows is that the first rule of the drama boards is to never let the truth get in the way of some good snark; applying this rule by alleging that other editors have prioritized snarkiness over constructiveness is just for bonus points. — Francophonie&Androphilie 17:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The backlog at WP:RM has been horrendous for months. On October 24 it was "only" 20, and climbed to over 120, which is where it is now. There just have not been enough users closing them. It likely has been years since it was cleared. We did make it worse for ourselves by encouraging more page moves to use WP:RM instead of just moving the page. Technical moves though - non-controversial ones, gets cleared out every day. We just need someone to step up to the plate and commit to clear out the back log every week, if not every day. Apteva (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to see if there are some good candidates for NACs, but these require clear and unquestionable consensus, as well as the non-existence of the target page... so hardly a majority, I'd expect. Salvidrim! 03:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It hasn't been years, but it is usually quite backed up. Every once in awhile it seems someone goes nuts there and closes them all. There is great rejoicing, and then a week later there is a huge backlog again. RM just doesn't get the attention it needs. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• It's a bit of a drag. I just did three old ones, and it took me more than half an hour, including reading, closing, moving, a notification here and there. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• I am happy to report that the backlog is down to "only" 89 today, that is a reduction of 32 in only two days. Great work! At this rate it will be cleared out in less than a week. Apteva (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• I naively said at my RfA that I'd be happy to chip in at RM, and then I actually *read* through some of the oldest ones... and I realized why nobody wanted to close them! I did a few earlier in the week, and I'll take a look at clearing some more out today. —Darkwind (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Basically it is called a backlog because before then they should have been closed, so actually the backlog should never exist. It is set up so there are seven days of debate and then on the ninth day goes into backlog. Everything in the last dated section are closeable. I would recommend checking some of the earlier ones too, there are some that can be closed even in the first day. I close some of the ones that are obvious, but as a non-admin there are many that I can not close, such as this one, but an admin could have a couple of days ago (This article is about the Indonesian island. Bali is a province in the country of Indonesia. The province covers a few small neighbouring islands as well as the isle of Bali.). Apteva (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Backlog is down to 86 today. It looks long but there are several multimoves. Apteva (talk) 07:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Admin attention to an RFC/U, please

I want to highlight this RFC/U for admins' attention: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Apteva.

In an attempt at strict compliance with closing instructions, a motion to close was drawn up on the talkpage: Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Apteva#Motion to close. The RFC has been open since 30 November 2012 (that's 33 days, as I write). Nothing important remains unconsidered, and the trickle of new contributions simply aligns with opinions that are already well exposed. The motion to close has revealed overwhelming consensus; the delay in implementing this consensus with a formal closure (and an accurately detailed summary of that consensus) perpetuates uncertainty on the Project (notably at WT:MOS).

Would an admin who is experienced in these processes please take care of it? I request an admin, specifically. The consensus is clear, but the details need to considered with care. Several comments mention an approach to ArbCom if the matter is not settled with finality.

Thank you!

Noetica 03:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, that RFC/U cannot be closed. You appear to be looking for option 3 under instructions which is a motion to close. However, you miss the general explanation over option 3 at the very top which says "The parties and/or participants to the dispute agree (via a motion on the talk page of that RfC/U)." Although you have a motion that has consensus, not all of the parties have agreed. So this cannot be closed yet. I might be reading this too strictly, I've only closed a handful of RFC/Us, but that's what I am seeing.--v/r - TP 13:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)--v/r - TP 13:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Tom that generally user conduct RFCs are not closed except by the subject user's consent. Generally, user conduct RFCs either fade away and are delisted or are escalated to Arbcom due to the subject user's refusal to consent to consensus. It's also worth noting that while it cannot serve as the sole basis for administrative sanctions, such as a block, a user conduct RFC can be indicative of behavior which could result in an administrator blocking the subject user. MBisanz 15:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If Apteva doesn't accept that consensus there, or at least abide by the spirit of the ban by stopping the disruption (which he seems to be continuing as we speak), then I'm told that a good next step is to request a community ban here at WP:AN. Is there some suggested process for that? Dicklyon (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course there is the option of requesting a topic ban here at WP:AN. Remember? That's what happened with PMAnderson, though that ban was later trumped by more stringent sanctions.

I have reviewed the rather confusing provisions for closure of an RFC/U. Option 3 includes this text (my underlining):

However, where a summary is disputed, all participants must agree at the RfC/U talk page on which summary to use. This is because in the absence of a clear consensus one way or another, writing the closer's own view of the dispute as the summary/close has been considered controversial in the past.

Well and good. But in the present case, the summary at the first motion to close has vastly more acceptance than any other. So how could any other summary supplant it? And why would any radically different new summary be seriously proposed? Yet I see that Hasteur has attempted another, much weaker summary, and has sought to impose it as somehow superseding those already in place. (See Motion to close (5) at the talkpage, which until I refactored for conformity with the established structure purported to be in a special category, somehow standing above the preceding motions.)

Hasteur seems to have unusual views on the closing of these things: different from the guidelines, and different from views expressed above. I have asked Hasteur to give an explanation, here in this section.

Again, if things do not proceed according to the guidelines, it may be necessary for ArbCom to settle the matter. Let's hope it will not come to that.

Noetica 07:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This has already been at Neotarf (talk) 10:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

*COUGH* Noetica, since you seem to be out for blood please place yourself in the guillotine first.

1. You have failed to follow the instructions of this page. You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. It's a big yellow box.
2. The proper location to request closure of a RfC is at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, a subsection at the very top of this page.
3. If you had shelved your bloodlust for sanctioning Apteva, you would have seen that the proposed closure I make is weaker only because that's a neutral summary that doesn't impose any next steps. RfC/U is not about making next steps, it's about informing the subject of a significant problem with their editing.
4. You'll see that I've "propose closed" contentious RfC/U's in the same manner before and been thanked for it .
5. Finally, your request here is what caused me to come look at the RfC/U again. Finessing the rules is how these lower closes can happen while at the same time leaving tracks for future disruptive behaviors to roll forward on.

I question if you, Noetica, might benefit from a vacation from the area around this RfC/U as you seem to be heavily invested (both mentally and emotionally) in seeking sanctions. Let it go. Hasteur (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Serious, guillotine? blood? I don't hear Noetica suggesting anything like that. He's just frustrated, as I have been for months, that there doesn't seem to be a way to get Apteva to stop the disruption. I thought that after a few months and warnings my request to AN/I would have been enough to get an admin to give him a firm warning with penalty of block for continued disruption, but it was ignored. Now that we've got a huge consensus that he needs to stop and avoid this area where everything he has tried to do has been firmly rejected as disruptive and against consensus, we're still nowhere in terms of a process to get him to stop. Can you help instead of trying to make Noetica the bad guy here? Dicklyon (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, Hasteur did say this: AN or RfArb, but first see if Apteva will take on board the viewpoints (Apteva hasn't. or at least has not agreed to stop what is being asked to stop). HaugenErik (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hasteur, I answer your numbered points:

1. Do you mean Apteva? If so, that is explained at Apteva's talkpage. The discussion was not started about Apteva, but about the state of an RFC/U and how to close it according to settled procedures. If you mean I have failed to notify you, please note: You are not the subject of the discussion. The discussion is about how to proceed in a case that cries out for closure when there is already a very strong consensus established, and you have sought to act administratively in the case. Anyway, you were notified of this discussion, at the talkpage of the RFC/U.
2. A request for closure was indeed posted at the location you suggest. I sought action on that request, and that seems to be fair and normal. I also sought clarification of some very obscure closing instructions. Obviously people interpret them differently, so I feel perfectly justified in making this approach here.
3. The neutrality and utility of your attempt at an administrative summing-up are seriously questionable, in the face of a clear expression of opinion from a great majority of the participating editors. Your immoderate language against me does you no credit: "since you seem to be out for blood please place yourself in the guillotine first"; "if you had shelved your bloodlust for sanctioning Apteva". By itself, that is a good basis for action concerning your conduct. In particular, for a request or sanctions aimed at excluding you from intervening administratively in any RFC/U.
   I now formally ask you to withdraw that wording, which I say is inflammatory and abusive, and does not reflect the facts.
4. I know that you have been thanked for your actions in the past, and I don't doubt that they were well intended. I am concerned about the present very serious case, in which there is a plain consensus – one that your actions might possibly nullify, despite your good intentions here also.
5. My request here was specifically for an "admin who is experienced in these processes" to deal expeditiously with an important case where a clear consensus has emerged. It was specifically not for a non-admin. It is disappointing that you still intervened. No one is trying to "finesse the rules", except perhaps you (I regret having to say). I came here to get action, but also clarity about Byzantine rules that I am now convinced need re-drafting. (I might take some part in that, because I have experience with clear unambiguous drafting.)

Last, I note your condescending remarks about my taking a vacation. I could make similar remarks about you, with at least equal justification. I am a style specialist, with more edits at WP:MOS than any other editor (mostly to tidy things, and to guard against non-consensual or ill-documented changes), but believe me: I willingly absent myself from there for months at a time. Almost a year, in 2010. It is impertinent of you to make suggestions about my mental and emotional well-being, when I pursue the normal business of assisting to deal with disruption in a WP area that is my specialty. You have no idea what you are talking about.
I now formally ask you to withdraw that wording also.

♥

Noetica 23:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

@Noetica: You said

However, where a summary is disputed, all participants must agree at the RfC/U talk page on which summary to use. This is because in the absence of a clear consensus one way or another, writing the closer's own view of the dispute as the summary/close has been considered controversial in the past.

Well and good. But in the present case, the summary at the first motion to close has vastly more acceptance than any other. So how could any other summary supplant it?

You yourself quoted the most important aspect of closing an RFC/U. All participants, including the target of the RFC/U, must agree to the close. RFC/Us arnt meant to have teeth. They are a discussion that are meant to get the target to see what their poor behavior is. If they fail, then they fail and you move on to higher dispute resolution. However, ignoring the line that you underlined because you have 28 v 4 votes in favor of your preferred close doesn't mean squat and is completely against the purpose of an RFC/U. Sorry, it's unfair to you, but that's what they are. Hastuer gave good advice, I suggest you take it.--v/r - TP 17:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hasteur, this is nothing against you personally, but the instructions do say specifically that an admin can be requested for the close, and this was done. While non-admin closures of RFCs are often appreciated elsewhere in the interests of clearing backlogs, in my experience, any editors who wander into the area of MOS, myself included, quickly find themselves trying to walk on quicksand. Non-admins who have tried to close MOS-related RFCs in the past have deeply regretted it. A non-admin closure simply will not be seen as legitimate. In addition, you will not be viewed as "uninvolved" since you participated in the RFC/U yourself, here: WP:Requests for comment/Apteva#Outside view by Hasteur, recommending that hyphens and en-dashes be replaced by spaces. The sky is blue, the pope is Catholic, and Noetica is Noetica. Let it go.

So we are back to Dicklyon's original question. Is there a suggested process for requesting a community ban here at WP:AN?

Neotarf (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Most people who wander over to MOS make one or two edits, almost 300 in the last couple of years, while less than half a dozen made over 50 edits, and only two over 100 edits each (one of whom quit editing WP because of being tired of "arguing with about trivia"). Not sure about it being quicksand, but it has not exactly been what anyone would call welcoming, although the talk page header says "Be polite, and welcoming to new users" (it was missing for part of last year). On the talk page almost 500 editors made one or two edits (about half), and just over half a dozen made over 500 edits each. Apteva (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Apteva, twenty-eight editors have just signed a statement saying they want you to change your behavior, and you are babbling about numbers of edits???!!1! Do you have any clue about what is going on here? Are you willing to pay any attention to them? —Neotarf (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Mostly 28 signatures, with sparse comments: Remember that the format of the RFC/U was very limited, with the restriction that other users "endorse" each view (by signature), with little commentary, where the comments were fractionated onto the attached talk-page. For those reasons, Apteva has stated, here, that it will take a while to wade through the various comments (and gobs of signatures) to find real explanations. Plus, remember, that the RFC/U did not require diff-links to prove claims, and so Apteva will have difficulty following some opinions about alleged incidents from months ago, with no diff-link text to provide specific details about each claim. In essense, that RFC/U was a pile of vague claims that there had been some problems, but few specifics. In fact, I think many people do not understand the talk of "false consensus" as meaning that although a consensus was reached to draft a wp:DASH page, that result seemed to have been forced into agreement, and did not account for true opposition, where the results should have been "no consensus" and hence no rule to suggest dashes be used in some cases. Another problem was the notion that "6,000 people" could agree and 1 opposed person be right, because actually, per wp:CONSENSUS, a wiki-consensus must align with policies, as determined by a wider consensus, and no "local consensus" (even among "6,000" people) can override a long-term policy as developed by the combined attention of 110,000 active editors each month on Misplaced Pages (33,000 editing over 5 article-edits per month). So the issues about "no consensus" were in relation to those problems, rather than the claim that "consensus was being ignored". I hope that clarified the mystery of why consensus needs to be broadened. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for topic ban for Apteva

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

Based on the RFC/U and discussion here, and User:Apteva's rejection of all relevant findings and advice, I propose that we declare a community ban for Apteva, from engaging in pushing anti-en-dash and anti-MOS theories, including the theory that MOS and TITLE are in conflict. After the clear consensus at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Apteva, summarized in Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Apteva#Motion to close with 28 editors' endorsements, and considering Apteva's rejection of those findings and continued dispruptive pushing of these theories in the New Year, I see no alternatives (since the RFC/U can't be closed without his agreement and bothering the Arbcom with this seems unnecessary given the clear community consensus).

The consensus RFC/U summary says:

Apteva's persistent pushing of the theory that en dashes are never appropriate in proper names, such as the names of wars, comets, bridges, and airports, has been disruptive. Respecting the wishes of the community as represented by an overwhelming majority of responders at this RFC/U, Apteva will refrain from any further advocating of this position, or any position against en dashes or against the MOS being applicable to article titles, and will not make any page moves or RMs based on such theories. Violation of this topic ban will be grounds for a block and/or a request for arbitration.

And the continued disruption is evident in Apteva's WT:TITLE discussion, including these 2013 items:

• WT:TITLE diff – holding out for his idiosyncratic view with "The very core of using consensus is that even if 6,000 agree with something and only one disagrees, that one just might be right."
• WT:TITLE diff – continuing his long-lost case of Comet Hale–Bopp being incorrectly named.
• contributors data – showing Apteva dominating discussion at WP:TITLE in this new year, in spite of months of being told by many that this behavior is disruptive.

Rephrasing slightly for the context, I propose the following ban be enacted:

Apteva's persistent pushing of the theory that en dashes are never appropriate in proper names, such as the names of wars, comets, bridges, and airports, and his pushing of the theory that the MOS does not apply to article titles, has been disruptive. Based on the consensus reaction of the community, Apteva must refrain from any further advocating of these positions, or any position against en dashes or against the MOS being applicable to article titles, and must not make any page moves or RMs based on such theories. Violation of this topic ban will be grounds for an immediate block and/or a request for arbitration.

I believe any uninvolved admin can close and approve this ban here based on the existing discussions linked, especially given the existing AE discretionary sanctions in place concerning MOS and TITLE; I suggest we get Apteva's response here, and then not bother to repeat the reactions that are so richly represented already in the linked RFC/U and elsewhere. Dicklyon (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• A topic ban and community ban are different things; may want to clarify. --Rschen7754 21:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  WP:CBAN says "If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Misplaced Pages, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute." I'm referring to a community-imposed topic ban. Dicklyon (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Ok, that's a topic ban. When you say "community ban" or just ban in general, you're talking about an indefinite block that can only be overturned by consensus or Arbcom and is usually the result of long term abuse. A topic ban, however, is...well you know.--v/r - TP 22:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • The topic ban needs to be defined broadly though, the area of disruption has been wide. —Neotarf (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support I've been monitoring this from a distance, and the fact that Apteva does not understand what she is doing wrong is quite disturbing and disruptive. --Rschen7754 22:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  While I occasionally miss these, that is he or she thank you. Or xe. Apteva (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. This should be at ANI, not AN. I have been watching the progress of the RfCU and I must say that a topic ban on hyphens and dashes is long overdue. Binksternet (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • This is a ban proposal rather than discussion of a specific incident, so is entirely appropriate at AN. KTC (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • This was already taken to ANI. WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive777#Apteva disruption —Neotarf (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • And if no action was warranted then, and my behavior has changed, which it has (but not my beliefs, which I am entitled to express appropriately), why would any action be warranted today? I would ask that I be allowed to read over the reams of accusations at the RFC/U and correct my behavior on the basis of those accusations. Apteva (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
      • The difference now is that you haven't stopped beating the dead horse despite the advice from the last ANI. We know you want dash/hyphens in titles to be used a certain way. Repeated consensus has decided against this, and yet you continue to push your agenda, including to the point of disruption of talk page functionality. --MASEM (t) 00:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
        • It is false that I "want dash/hyphens in titles to be used a certain way". It is a fact that dashes and hyphens are used in a certain way, and I would like to propose that we use them appropriately. What we do is not under any one editors control, and wanting something a particular way is ludicrous. Apteva (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
          • It's called a "house style", where consensus has decided to uses dashes and hyphens in a certain way, because other style guides have conflicting advice. You don't like what consensus has decide and/or you believe you know what's best for WP - both attitudes are ones that lead to disruption and eventually blocks. --MASEM (t) 02:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Question: Does this propsed topic ban on hyphens v dashes extend to article content and article titles via the RM process or does it just apply to the MOS guideline? I think this aspect should extraordinairly clear in the propsal. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • We have also seen disruptive refactoring discussion, archiving, resetting of bots, tampering with templates, etc. None of this was a problem when Apteva was editing only in article space. —Neotarf (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I am actually one of the very few editors who knows what a dash and a hyphen is, and knows when they are correctly used, so not editing dashes and hyphens and not expressing a view on them is pointless. Apteva (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The proposal includes "must not make any page moves or RMs based on such theories". I have not noticed any disruption in article content, but if the dash aversion makes itself felt in articles, too, then the provision "Apteva must refrain from any further advocating of these positions, or any position against en dashes" ought to be enough to keep the disruption down, I would think. I'm not into trying to wikilawyer the details; I'm sure xe can be warned if the behavior seems like it's near the line, so xe's not going to accidentally get ximself blocked. Propose a clarification here if you think one is warranted. Dicklyon (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support the strongly expressed consensus, and the topic ban as a regrettable necessity. (I have closed the RFC/U, though I was involved. It was just a technical matter, since the transfer to this page.) There is no need for a new round of voting here, of course. Everything has already been thoroughly gone over at the RFC/U and its talkpage, with a convincing outcome.
  Noetica 23:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  Which I reverted - no involved editor can close a non-consensus RfC. Apteva (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Not helpful to your cause or to anything else, Apteva. I have reverted your reversion. For one thing, you are centrally involved. For another, it is highly disruptive for you to revert a technical closure (fully explained as such), which any editor in good standing may perform, regardless of involvement. Nothing in the closing instructions for RFC/U provides otherwise. I call on editors to assist in keeping the RFC/U duly closed; the discussion is now correctly transferred here. Noetica 00:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Typical. I trust that an uninvolved admin will revert the above action and post a warning appropriately on the above editor's talk page. How many times was the RfC closed and reverted at MOS by the same edit warrior? Edit warring is prohibited. Apteva (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Uh huh. A quick and dirty link to a complex matter that was thoroughly dealt with at ANI, with no action against any of a whole bunch of parties including some shady old hand posting as an IP? Sorry – no more straws to clutch at. Move this along now? Noetica 02:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Ah, yes, now I remember that sockfarm-infested RFC. Apteva/Delphi234 admitted to being one of the IPs, that resolved to central England, even though Apteva is obviously American. But nobody ever copped to the rest of the IPs, also in central England, but writing in American English.—Neotarf (talk) 11:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Just to set the record straight, I was not involved in that RFC either as an IP or logged in. I did straighten out the archives and keep the thread from getting archived yet again. Apteva (talk) 07:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• support Whatever it is. I'm happy with an indef site ban by now, after it has gone on this long. Rarely have I seen an editor so clue-resistant. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support with broadly defined topics. —Neotarf (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support – even here, well into the 11th hour, ban looming, Apteva seems intent via yet more ill-judged remarks upon depriving Misplaced Pages of the one editor who knows an en—dash from their elbow. (I seem to recall that Socrates did not choose his last words optimally.) Oculi (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Topic ban, and Oppose Community ban. Just in case, I'm gonna make it clear: A topic ban may be useful, because the user can still edit and enjoy the good parts of the pedia; also, the virus that infects his desire of changing things and all the drama is gone. I oppose a community ban because whe've had enough of that. I don't want another Jack Merridew case here. Let's just cut it simple, remove what has been bugging the community, and give the user the free will to edit elsewhere and being harmless. — ΛΧΣ 02:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• OpposeConditional Oppose for now, see my comments at the Opposition to a topic ban section. As I said below consider my !vote to become support or partial support if Apteva does not keep to that. PaleAqua (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Switching to pure oppose, with the understanding that if Apteva breaks the voluntary ban, that I will switch to support. Would still see a statement from Apteva agreeing to the terms in the A resolution to the dispute section below. PaleAqua (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support a ban along these lines, broadly defined—I think we've had enough of this. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose RFC/U is a form of dispute resolution. As of right now, the RFC/U has been closed for 9 hours. Give the editor time to reflect on what has transpired. He/she now knows that the community has found their behavior to be disruptive. If they are wise, then they will learn from this. However, if in a week or two the disruption has continued, then we can revisit a topic ban. Right now though I feel such a topic ban would be preemptive rather than solving a problem that may well have been at least partially resolved through the RFC/U. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  That close was to bring the conversation here, after Apteva had rejected the consensus summary of the RFC/U and continued the months of disruption into the new year. Dicklyon (talk) 08:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Obviously the purpose of all of our dispute resolution mechanisms is to help us learn to work harmoniously together, and not call for blocks and bans. It is certainly reasonable to wait a week and see if the RFC helped. But just to be specific, that close was allegedly because of the conversation here, not to bring the conversation here. But this is the "Admin attention to an RFC/U, please" thread, and an admin was specifically requested, and rejected, as the proper close was to just let it finish, which it has, but it is not correct to close it by anyone involved, and that should be reverted. Apteva (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  AQ, Apteva has soundly rejected what was asked at the RFC/U. Even here in this page, since the RFC/U was closed, Apteva has said: It is a fact that dashes and hyphens are used in a certain way, and I would like to propose that we use them appropriately and I am actually one of the very few editors who knows what a dash and a hyphen is, and knows when they are correctly used, so not editing dashes and hyphens and not expressing a view on them is pointless. We've waited months since it has been made clear to Apteva that Apteva's campaigns are disruptive; there have been no changes. What is going to happen in the next week? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  I fully agree his behavior and frivolous RM nominations of the past are disruptive. At least for now, he has ceased the behavior that caused the RFC/U, which was his attempts to force policy changes. The first quote you link he is correcting Masem on what his views are and the second he is explaining his reasoning for making past decisions. Now I do think he needs to admit his wrong in attempting to force policy changes and denying consensus.

• I see a lot of editors upset over the long discussions Apteva has caused these last few months, and I understand the frustration. To be honest though, I don't think this editor has reached the point of needing topic ban restrictions. He is coming very close to that point, but he hasn't crossed that line. I think the best course of action is for an admin to give him a strongly worded final warning on his talk page. Looking through his talk page archives, he has not to received one yet. That would go hand in hand with the RFC/U, which I think was an eye opener for him, Give him time to reflect on what has transpired. If Apteva goes back to push for a policy change, then we can revisit a topic ban. At which point I would support a topic ban. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how you can argue that Apteva has not received enough warnings. I've made it clear to Apteva several times that this behavior needs to stop, and I know other editors have as well. The comments at the RFC/U should have served as a warning. User_talk:Apteva/Archive_4#Only_warning also—notice the total lack of understanding the problem in Apteva's response: it's others that have the problem. You might be right about interpreting Apteva's comments that I've quoted, but I asked if Apteva stands by those in that context and the reply was only "a temporary 'recusal'"—so by the editor's own words we'll be back at this at some point. This has gone on long enough; it needs to stop. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Not so. There are appropriate ways of bringing anything up and inappropriate ways. What I am asked is to be more appropriate in my editing style. Not a problem. Apteva (talk) 04:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

  How can you at this point think that any of this is about your editing style? What are you talking about? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

  It was a polite way of saying bringing up the same issue 100 times. Or 4 times, or however many times it was. And no no one needs to say oh but it was at least x number of times. It was beyond the threshold of some. Had it been someone else, for me, they are welcome to bring it up a million times - it just gets quarantined to a subpage where it bothers no one. Apteva (talk) 07:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

  Agreed, that section was particularly worrisome. I saw that section when I was reading through his talk page archives earlier today. The warning from MBisanz on Apteva's talk page was over his attempted disruption of the RFC/U. (When I mentioned "giving Apteva a final warning" above, I was referring to the hyphen issue.) Apteva demonstrated his uncertainty on what section of the policy he violated. Assuming good faith here, Apteva has displayed fundamental misunderstanding of a key Misplaced Pages policy (if this is the case, he really should go back an study a refresher on policy). Assuming the worst, then he is simply playing the I didn't hear that game. Now, for the moment I am assuming good faith on the part Apteva. It's part of the reason I am opposing the topic ban at the moment. Then again, I have usually been very cautious about supporting a topic ban proposal. The other reason is I feel it is too soon after the RFC/U to make a decent decision. The editor hasn't edited enough since the closure for anyone to determine his intentions. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Once again, that is his or her, thank you. And yes feel free to open an AN/I if I bring up what I can not say during the temporary moratorium. I am certain that it is not going to happen. Apteva (talk) 04:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

  AQ, Apteva has been warned about hyphens. Consider the RFC/U, where the message was rejected. I told Apteva this behavior was disruptive here: Talk:Comet_Hale–Bopp#Misnamed. Others have also made this abundantly clear to Apteva, over and over, at countless other venues. It does not affect Apteva's behavior. Look—I have no doubt that Apteva is operating in good faith. Obviously Apteva is totally convinced about these issues, and is trying to help and make Misplaced Pages better. That doesn't make this behavior less disruptive. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support, per proposer, and on the further basis that Apteva's continued efforts to argue this tedious nonsense about lines that our readers can't tell apart, and wouldn't care about if they could, even as the ban is being discussed here. Nothing short of an outright ban is going to shut him/her up, self-evidently. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

His attitude on his talk page would suggest otherwise. If you think about it, the concern he raised was legitimate. One's keyboard has a dash, yet articles use em dashed. It is a bit odd to say the least. There is a redirect from the dash version anyway, so ultimately the debate isn't worth much, but it is still a valid point. However, he took it too far and argued his point too long after consensus was reached. This resulted in an RFC/U where the community established that continuing to debate the topic was causing disruption. With this in mind, Apteva has two options. He can continue to debate the issue and end up with a topic ban, or he can let the issue lie and go on with editing articles. It's really up to Apteva, does he want to receive a topic ban due to the fact that he debated how many pixels a line should have in a title?

The RFC/U was used as dispute resolution in this case. It has run it's course, the community established that and his continuing the debate was disruptive, and Apteva now knows his options. So far, Apteva has ceased performing the actions that led RFC/U. Providing this remains so, the RFC/U served it's purpose and resolved the dispute. If it continues in the future, then we can revisit a topic ban discussion. Right now, a topic ban would simply be a punishment for causing past disruption. Let the past remain in the past, topic bans are not intended to be punitive, but rather preventive. There is no disruption to prevent at the moment due to Apteva having ceased. So let's lay this to rest. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

"There is no disruption to prevent at the moment due to Apteva having ceased". If he/she had, you might have a point - but Apteva is still arguing the case for whatever-length-lines-wherever, even in this discussion. A ban will (hopefully) prevent any more of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

What he is asking for in the section below is cooler heads when discussing MoS topics. Yes, this is not the place or the time for it due to the fact that this is a topic ban debate concerning him, but it is a reasonable request. MoS debates can quite quickly degrade into heated exchanges. Followed by editors attempting to topic ban another group of editors or one specific editor. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 10:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Alpha, you do not seem to be tracking Apteva's actual activity. Instead of considering comments in the RFC/U and trying to settle on how his behavior could change to mollify the community, he simply used it as another platform for obsessive campaigning against dashes. And did the same thing at WT:MOS, and at WT:AT, and other places, as if the RFC/U were a joke. He makes claims that he's backing off and cooling down, but these are just words. His actions have not changed at all, not even after this WP:AN was opened! — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 19:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Well AQ, it's easy to see where you stand on the style matters that Apteva is utterly obsessed with. You are seriously mistaken in thinking that editors dedicated to MOS development want to shut anyone up. That is a distortion of history, and will not stand up to scrutiny. WT:MOS always welcomes constructive involvement from as many in the community as possible. But in the last couple of years MOS has been assailed by three or four editors who refuse to accept its consensually settled role, and do all that they can to marginalise it. Apteva is the most recent of those, and the most ingenious so far. The fast footwork continues, even here. Only as an extreme last resort do editors take an action like this RFC/U, which resulted in overwhelming agreement over its 35 days. The conclusion of the RFC/U, already settled and simply needing formalisation here? Stop the unremitting and wasteful disruption. With decisive action, for a change. Noetica 11:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It is quite true, there are many editors over at MOS that are very open to constructive changes to the MOS. However, all you have to do is take a look at the ARBOM case to see that there are...problems. And yes, there have been several editors of concerning attitude at MOS over the last few years. However, there are also editors at MOS that make the place particularly volatile for anyone attempting to hold new discussions. Now I am not going to name names, that is a can of worms I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. However, I will give you a hint, some of them participated in the last ARBCOM proceedings.

The RFC/U closure itself was a procedural train wreck. First, the wording on the leading closure statement was changed and other editors accept, but it now becomes unclear whether or not everyone listed really supports the current wording. Second, the conversation from the RFC/U spills over to AN in an attempt to close, then the RFC is closed by a participant in the RFC/U as moved to AN (effectively nullifying any decisions in the RFC/U). After it is closed, the subject of the RFC/U reopens only to be reclosed by the original closure (wheel warring). And now the supporters of the topic ban are acting like the decision in the RFC/U are binding and consensus based. The only thing that had somewhat established solid consensus was that his continued attempts to change policy was causing disruption.

As for where I stand on the issue, yes, I think having em dashes in titles is silly when every keyboard on the planet doesn't have an em dash key. It goes against WP:COMMONNAME. However, community consensus has been established and I respect that. Ultimately we have redirects that use dashes, rendering the largely cosmetic em dash debate unnecessary. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

There was a WP:SNOWBALL consensus in that RFC/U, Alpha Q. Please look again. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 23:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• I closed the RFC/U exactly according to the guidelines, in the strict and only correct way after checking in here for advice (see the top of this whole section). Anyone could have done it; someone had to do it; I did it: citing the plain reasons for the technical close, necessary once the process had moved to AN. That is not a train wreck; it is perfectly straightforward course of events, kept on track in part by my diligence and by the work of Dicklyon, despite attempts at derailment.
• The main statement itself was strongly and specifically endorsed, as can clearly be seen. I stemmed the disruption caused by the late addition of alternative wording, marking a clear point in time that was relevant. Again, someone had to. Any attempt to portray the RFC/U as somehow compromised is a plain distortion, for what now appear to be partisan reasons.
• As for ArbCom, some central players at MOS have exerted themselves and gone to extraordinary lengths, in cooperation with ArbCom to achieve peace and consensual stability, in two actions in recent times. In both, an arch-enemy of MOS was a central player. In the more recent case, he appeared as a sockpuppet and did all he could to impugn me personally, until he was exposed and given a one-year block and an indefinite topic ban. No MOS editor was so much as censured or warned; but another vocal advocate against MOS was given a warning. The facts are on record; get them right, please.
• MOS and its dedicated editors, who never rush to litigation and do welcome all bona fide, useful participation, are not under examination here. The topic over the last five weeks has been the egregiously disruptive conduct of one editor. Please stay on topic.
• It is appropriate now for an admin to review what the community has said at the RFC/U, and to complete the process.

Noetica 13:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Your opinionated description of editors in the ARBCOM case, the actual events of the ARBCOM case, the MOS editors, and the current RFC/U clearly demonstrates how deeply involved you are in this issue. You have a very positive opinion about the creator of the RFC/U and a very negative opinion of the subject of the RFC/U. That puts your closure in a very questionable position. There were other uninvolved users that could have closed that debate in time. Now regardless of whether or not your closure was technically appropriate, you should have let another user reclose the debate after the subject of the debate reopened it. If an involved admin had closed that discussion only to have it reopened (even by an involved party), it is very likely he would have asked for a second completely uninvolved admin to review his decision. It prevents drama and further conflict. The alternative is wheel warring, which is hardly appropriate given the situation. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban on hyphen and en-dash edits, move requests, and arguments, broadly interpreted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• 'Oppose per AQ, with a warning to Apteva that if they're not banned now, immediate and significant change in behavior will likely be necessary to avoid a ban in the future. NE Ent 14:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Noted, and I am certain that it will not be an issue. No ban is needed because of the voluntary moratorium. Apteva (talk) 04:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Apteva has been the single most obsessively tendentious and disruptive editor, on style matters he does not even properly understand, that I've ever encountered in 7+ years on WP. The topic ban should be extended to Wikid77 and Enric Naval, who form a triumvirate with Apteva of incessant WP:FORUMshopping and asking every WP:PARENT they can think of, again and again and again, because they refuse to acknowledge and pretend they can't see that virtually everyone else who's ever commented on the dispute disagrees with them, with their their tag-team WP:BATTLEGROUND abuse of talk pages, or usually both. It should also be extended to LittleBenW who has recently joined them; after his own block and a topic ban for precisely this kind of "style warrior" WP:SOAPBOX browbeating and canvassing against diacritics in article titles, he's simply switched to anti-dash campaigning, and gone right back to it. All four of these people seem to me to have begun as well-meaning, active editors working on improving articles, but have descended into some kind of WP:GREATWRONGS Hell of rage against anyone who dares to disagree with them, their community-abusive tactics or their badly broken logic. They are no longer here to write an encyclopedia, but to wage a typographical jihad just for the hell of it; they don't even seem to care any more what nit-pick they're trolling about, as long as they can keep the attention piling on and keep the flames burning higher and higher, wasting as many other editors' time as possible. My hope is that a broad (not just hyphens & dashes), MOS & AT topic ban (a la PMAnderson) for at least a year will solve the problem. If not, well, we all know where ARBCOM is. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 19:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Clarifications: A community ban would be okay, too; whatever works. Regardless what kind it is, it needs to include dash/hyphen, and preferably style issues more broadly, not just at MOS and AT/NC talk pages, but generally, including on article and user talk pages, XfDs, etc. Apteva does not competently understand complex style matters, or WP policy, but is 100% convinced he does and that everyone else is basically just crazy or stupid when they don't agree with him, so he'll never actually improve in this regard. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 21:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Come on now. I have dropped several issues when I saw that I wasn't getting anywhere. My last activities have been arguing in WT:MOS in Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_133#Comet_Hale-Bopp. And one RM for a minor planet (they are named by the same authority as comets) that I shouldn't have started because it was obviously going to fail. I have currently stopped because of: being tired + holidays + unsure of how to proceed + Apteva hickjaking the threads to discuss again airport names and others. In the future I might get around to emailing the IAU again and making one focused discussion in WT:MOS for only that particular topic. I have given up on other hyphen/dash names, MOS editors demand an arbitrarily high amount of proof that I can't meet for any of those groups of names. I didn't comment on Apteva's RfC/U because I am not comfortable with his behaviour. I even advised Apteva to stop participating in MOS discussions and go back to editing articles. It's a pity that he didn't listen to me. I guess I should have insisted more. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll take you at face value on that, and strike your name, then. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 21:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I've struck all my mentions of you, but I want to be clear why I included you; you showed a pattern of "following Apteva around" to post responses that seemed to entirely bolster his anti-consensus viewpoints, and to be engaging in the same kinds of anti-MOS conspiracy theories. Now, you seem to be suffering from the same "if I pretend there is no consensus, there is no consensus!" delusion. Just above, you simultaneously say you have given up on hyphen/dash and want everyone to notice how you drop issues when you realize you're not on the consensus side of them, yet in the same breath you vow to dig some kind of phantasmal "smoking gun" out of IAU to wave in our faces. You are not listening. For the umpteenth time, WP's MOS is not bound to do what some particular field does in their own journals just because they do it; we have our own house style, just as they do, and where theirs conflicts with ours, we are apt to reject their style quirk. (And they have some really weird quirks, like dropping the hyphens from hyphenated surnames, which MOS would certainly not tolerate.) Most importantly, you are "pulling an Apteva" in ignoring that we already have a long-standing, difficult-to-arrive-at consensus on hyphens and en-dashes, and are planning your own mini-campaign to go get more "proof" from IAU that we're all "wrong". I named you for a reason here the first time around. WP:JUSTDROPIT. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 22:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The IAU email is because of Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#What_multiple_reliable_sources_explicitly_say_-_continuing. Unfortunately, I got dispirited by the frontal rejection of the first email. The thread has since been derailed by you, Apteva, Noetica and Dicklyon. Near the end of the thread there some attempts to rescue the thread by Peter Coxhead, Quale or Neotarf, but they are all drowned in the noise..... It's all very sad..... --Enric Naval (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I also don't think anything Wikid77 has done warrants any kind of sanctions. I've seen nothing terribly disruptive, unlike the months of forum shopping and tireless crusading that we've seen from Apteva. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't take months to be disruptive. Wikid77 says everything Apteva does, in all the same places, with all the same logic flaws, conspiracy theories about MOS, endless WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT tendentiousness, and stubborn, outspoken refusal to acknowledge consensus. I call WP:DUCK and WP:SPADE. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 22:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it does takes months. We gave Apteva months. Wikid77 joined him only about 33 days ago, and has been much less vocal and persistent; probably less than 1 related post per day. He is entitled to express his opinion, and entitled to support Apteva, to be stubborn, and to not acknowledge consensus, as long as the volume of contributions doesn't rise to a disruptive dominance like Apteva's does. Not entitled to call himself uninvolved, though. Let's not derail the discussion by dragging in people who for whatever reason take Apteva's side. Focus on the disrupter. Dicklyon (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support per SMcCandlish. --John (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. I understand the concerns, I understand the frustrations, and I understand the desire to get this thing done and archived. I do hope, though, that something voluntary - a promise to abstain as described below - could be achieved rather than an all-encompassing topic ban. Depending on events in the next few hours, I may reluctantly support a topic ban. dci | TALK 20:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Very strong oppose per Apteva's comment below. dci | TALK 22:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

order=-edit_count

• I can assure everyone that I will not be discussing hyphens and dashes. No topic ban or block is called for, and would certainly immediately be appealed, wasting even more of our time when the proper thing to do is close this, accept that I have agreed to a voluntary moratorium, get back to real work improving the encyclopedia and let bygones by bygone. Hey it is a new year and this is hardly the way to start out. Apteva (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Apteva, this is good news, thank you. Can you confirm that this is permanent, that you will not discuss hyphens, dashes, or MOS/AT interactions? Thank you! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Oh dear, I see above you said "temporary moratorium" again after I asked this. I can't see any reason why we would want to go through this again later; a topic ban seems to be the only way to resolve this, there has been quite enough disruption. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks Apteva, any chance you could agree to the terms in A resolution to the dispute section below? PaleAqua (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  It is not very well written, and there is no need for it. Obviously we all follow all guidelines and policies. Obviously those change from time to time, but the principles behind them rarely change. Even though the five pillars page has been edited over a thousand times little has changed in actual content. Obviously some editors have pointed to half a dozen issues they have had with me, mostly from editors whom I have warned about violating policy or guideline. Obviously I am willing to learn how to edit in a manner that will not lead to them having any issues with me. I am only here to help. Apteva (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Holding the community to ransom by explicitly threatening to waste even more of our time with bureaucracy if you don't get your way? Not a great development. Besides if your promise not to engage in this dispute is even remotely genuine then why are you so opposed to a topic ban? No, no thanks; we've already explored the avenue of voluntary topic bans and it failed miserably. It's time for more formal action to end this and so I support the topic ban proposed. Basalisk ⁄_berate 22:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Not "good news" at all. Apteva is trolling. This is all a game to him. Just topic ban him, let him appeal and lose, and let's all get back to doing what we came here for. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib.

Agreed. Way too little, way too late, way too slippery, as always. This latest desperate and utterly forced dodge is groundwork for yet more ingenious disruption. We have seen all this before, and the natural assumption of good faith has long expired. Apteva needs to show real insight voluntarily, and genuine change – and that means hearing the advice that admins and other experienced editors have been giving for many months, without being dragged kicking and screaming into reasonableness. Noetica 22:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support: I fully support a broadly interpreted topic ban in this case. There’s no downside here for Apteva since they claim they will voluntarily adhere to a topic ban anyway. However, there is tremendous upside here for Misplaced Pages. Our titling policy, naming conventions, MOS, etc. is a minefield of contentiousness already that disrupts WP every day in many ways. That has to change. A broadly interpreted topic ban in this case will serve as a message to others who seek to challenge already fragile consensus with forum shopping, tendentious editing and the “I am always right” attitude. --Mike Cline (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban of Apteva: After days of consideration, and concerns about wp:TAGTEAM hounding of User:Apteva, I see that people are willing to hound anyone who supports Apteva, but I will not empower those people by topic-banning Apteva, nor User:Enric Naval, nor myself (User:Wikid77), nor others who oppose the pro-dash push to force dashes into titles where the wp:COMMONNAME spelling has used hyphens for many years, decades, or centuries, as in the case of the 1887 "Michelson-Morley experiment" (which has been spelled with a hyphen in over 93% of reliable sources; see top 1,000 entries in Google Scholar search). However, if anyone asks why Misplaced Pages has such widespread use of dashes, when many grammar or punctuation errors exist in the same articles, then I think I can begin to explain the bizarre imbalance. Meanwhile, I applaud Apteva's willingness to reduce discussions about dash/hyphen problems, and I do not see the need for a topic ban, and BTW, I also support Apteva's wishes for a Happy New Year to all! -Wikid77 (talk) 01:13/05:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Wikid77, I think that you are mistaken here. I think that Apteva has stepped over the boundaries of disruptiveness. And you are following his path, as if he was an example to follow. He is not. By following his example you are buying numbers to get yourself blocked in a not-very-far future. Apteva means well, but his actions in WT:MOS create a lot of noise and no improvement to the encyclopedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Apteva is basically correct, in almost all posts which I have read; however, perhaps the message is not understood in some venues. The big issue to me, is that a guideline (wp:MOS) does not override a policy (wp:COMMONNAME), where instead, a policy should be changed to reflect a suggested guidance as becoming a stricter rule of policy. People have rejected the pro-dash naming, as unlikely to gain consensus, in the title-name policy. The result is: there is no consensus to change wp:TITLE to force dashes. I am not shouting that "MOS is totally wrong" but, again, the core problem is when trying to consider a guideline as overriding a policy (wp:TITLE), then we might as well write essays which override guidelines to then override policies. See that problem? Another problem is that endashes titles are unusual, peculiar, or rare in the world at large, and that makes Misplaced Pages seem imbalanced to some readers. As a straight-A student in both high school and universities, I learned to notice very small details, and the widespread overuse of dashes looms large in my view. Then, another problem is wp:Accessibility between hyphens/dashes (for both keyboard and display) which, as a computer scientist, I understand in extremely fine detail (among the thousands of Unicode values), as having developed early search-engine technology (multi-word hypertext scans) years before Google was founded. However, for years here, I ignored the hyphen/dash debates, as imagining that other users would re-balance Misplaced Pages to align with the world-at-large usage, and that did not happen. Hence, I came to investigate why Misplaced Pages has pushed dashes in such an over-the-top, fanatical fashion. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You seem unaware of this clarification to WP:TITLE and thus to COMMONNAME. If COMMONNAME ever applied to dashes, it doesn't now. Art LaPella (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Reluctant support of topic ban of Apteva: I am particularly impressed by this statement, in which he boasts that he is but one of the few people who knows how to uses hyphens and dashes properly. This implies that he still thinks he is right and all others who disagree with him are wrong, in the face of the considerable number of editors who have expressed dissatisfaction with his flying in the face of consensus and his chronic recalcitrance. I have no problems to him expressing his opinions or concerns, but he keeps on banging his drum tirelessly whilst clearly having stopped listening a long time ago – because everyone is wrong, of course ;-). Whilst I may have been tempted to further assume good faith, the belligerent statement above strongly suggests that a topic ban may be a minimum that will be needed to end the continuing disruption. If he has no intention of continuing to discuss or otherwise war on matters related to dashes and hyphens widely construed, then a topic ban will not affect how he behaves from now on. If, however, his intention is to continuing to argue and lawyer as he has so far done on this page, then the topic ban will have bite. -- Ohconfucius  05:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

  That certainly was not meant as a boast. It was meant to show that that was an area that I was competent to make contributions, in fixing other editors lack of awareness, and I certainly hope that will reconsider. I do sort of liken it to not being able to use the letter k. Apteva (talk) 07:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban Apteva has been disruptive in the area of hyphens and dashes, and moreover seems to be not be able to admit that he's wrong or that consensus is against him. I'm not saying that dashes should be used over hyphens in the names of comets, airports, bridges, etc., or hyphens over dashes. I'm just saying that Apteva always believes xe is right, which makes consensus-finding impossible. David1217 08:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

  Strange. I get the same vote as everyone else, that is just the way WP works. Sometimes I am right sometimes I am wrong. It is not an issue. Apteva (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban The disruption has to stop, and it is obvious merely from this discussion, let alone the RfC/U, that the only way to achieve that is to topic ban Apteva. Discussion of what kind of dash to use should only involve editors who understand how to operate in a community that depends on collaboration. Johnuniq (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

Opposition to a topic ban

I realize that there are valid viewpoints on both sides of this argument. The consensus definitely appears to be in favor of resolving this dispute as quickly as possible, and while doing so ensuring that it does not continue. Is it really necessary, though, to topic-ban Apteva? Yes, his role in this dispute has engendered controversy and resulted in general commotion in various places here on Misplaced Pages, but I think that merely resolving the dispute in accordance with consensus should suffice. This should be done without the additional imposition of a topic-ban or associated threat of a block. Instead, discussion on this topic should be limited or even entirely restricted for a given time; when it is allowed to resume, it must be done in a way that only discussion, and not related alterations to Misplaced Pages, ensues. dci | TALK 01:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I no longer care about the baby, but this bathwater is getting cold. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the issue is old, and the discussion a mite tiresome; but is a topic ban really appropriate, given circumstances? Based on a recent conversation I held with Apteva at his talk page, I can say confidently that he really does have reasonable intentions at heart. Why not give him a chance here, and move along? dci | TALK 02:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Give Apteva a chance? Give us a break. Has any editor been given more chances to step back from egregious widespread disruption? Apteva has squandered every such opportunity, and continues to do so. Let's move along. By all means. Noetica 02:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

When the editor in question has agreed to consider stepping aside from such topics for a time, I believe we can afford to give him a break. At any rate, we can all benefit from withdrawing ourselves from the rather minute details of dash length, and the least we can do is request a cessation in pressing this matter, from all parties. That way, we can wrap things up without burdening users with topic bans and the like. Personally, I don't like the idea of forcing someone to stop propagating their opinions; I think it's perfectly fine if Apteva does so, as long as he doesn't undertake overly controversial actions in the process. dci | TALK 02:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

There is the presumption of a right to express opinions, and then there is flagrant interminable and widespread abuse of that presumption, perverting it to disrupt work at half a dozen major development sites across the Project and innumerable user talkpages and pointy RM discussions. No glimmer of insight in evidence, and no hint of any reform.
There are limits. We reached them about eight weeks back. Noetica 02:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

And that's being chartiable. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 20:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Apteva's has made a few comments like recently, and I haven't seen much new in the way of move requests or the like. With my !vote changing to partial support of the topic ban if he or she makes another such move requests or reopens a new discussion on horizontal lines. As mentioned in the RfC/U I do think Apteva should be allowed to make terse / brief comments in discussions started by others on dashes, hyphens and the like, though would probably be best to hold off for a while on those as well. PaleAqua (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  A comment of "That sounds fair enough" is a far cry from committing himself to stopping the disruption. At many other places he has essentially promised to keep it up. If he wants to take a voluntary respite from disruption, let him propose that here. His proposal above is hardly in the right direction. Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  PaleAqua, I'm confused. What exactly are you supporting here? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Basically I am as sick of this nonsense as everyone else, and have agreed to back off, or recuse, as indicated above. I only hope that all of us have learned something from this, and will all have a great and productive new year. Apteva (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Being sick of it is understandable. But you still haven't said you've heard the problem, nor promised to stop it. So a topic ban is needed, it seems. Dicklyon (talk) 06:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Apteva, in the last few hours just above you said It is a fact that dashes and hyphens are used in a certain way, and I would like to propose that we use them appropriately and I am actually one of the very few editors who knows what a dash and a hyphen is, and knows when they are correctly used, so not editing dashes and hyphens and not expressing a view on them is pointless—are you sticking by those, or what do you mean here by "as indicated above"? Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Lets back up a little, what was proposed, as I understood it, was a temporary "recusal" from the dash-or-hyphen dispute, which I agreed to. This is, of course a voluntary recusal. Apteva (talk) 07:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC) I do not mind anyone responding inside a post but please dup the sig so that everyone can see who said what. Apteva (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

  Is that a yes, you are sticking by those statements? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Yes that is a yes, and yes I am sticking by those statements. Apteva (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

See what he wrote immediately below; he's being cagey, but is clearly indicating that the minute his self-imposed 30-day period of hoping people will forget, he's going to go right back to it, because he feels he is Right. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 20:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Most of the books written use hyphens and dashes in a certain way, is what I was saying. No one can change that. It is a fact that per WP policy it would reasonably be expected that WP would do whatever the majority of those books do, per the well established policy of common usage, instead of doing what only one out of 50 do. That is the crux of the problem. But that can wait for another day, year, decade or century. Misplaced Pages does not have a deadline.

I do a lot of RCP and WP:RM, but for the time being will ignore any that involve hyphens and dashes. Apteva (talk) 07:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no "policy of common usage" that applies to style. I think you mean the "use the most common name" point in article titles policy. It's been explained to you at least 20 times that AT covers facts of substance and MOS covers style and grammar matters, and that MOS's function is to observe the various different possible solutions to any given style dispute, pick one (sometimes arbitrarily – welcome to real life) and recommend that editors stick to it. Your sheer inability (or stubborn refusal, take your pick) to understand how WP policy works and why is one of the reasons I'm asking for a broader topic ban; you need to stay entirely out of style and article naming disputes indefinitely, until you fully understand what makes WP tick, because almost every time you raise a policy matter, you get it wrong, but you go on months-long, compulsive, whinging, passive-aggressive and frankly unhinged-looking tirades and campaigns about the tiniest nit-picks you have failed to understand properly. You know solar power and some other topics. The only way it is likely for you to become a productive editor again is to stick to those topics, unless and until you "become much more wiki", and internalize how WP works much better than you have so far. If I were you, I would not touch another style or naming issue here for at least a couple of years. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 20:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose any such bargaining, with no prospect of anything clear at all as a solution. We are dealing with an editor who once advertised intended candidacy for admin at RFA, for bureaucrat at RFB, and some other high office, in a random order. When Apteva did in fact go for RFB, the ensuing time-wasting and contemptuous game was taken seriously. (!) See an archived response at Apteva's talkpage. It makes fascinating reading. That was preceded by an RFA attempt, and followed by another. The quixotic campaign we are now having to deal with is the latest in a long series, and one that has drained most energy as the community attempts to absorb its impact. What on earth can we expect next time around? If there had been any frank statement of regret or contrition, we might reasonably give Apteva another chance. But there has been none. It's time for action, not foot-shuffling and setting ourselves up to be hoodwinked yet again by an experienced trickster. (Strong and strange language? Well, I can think of nothing more apt for this extraordinary situation.) Noetica 09:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. If Apteva has accepted a voluntary topic ban, then we are done here, yes? There is nothing left to do but write up Dicklyon's proposal in a separate section and let Apteva indicate agreement to abide by it. What is the usual procedure for this? Does it get recorded somewhere? —Neotarf (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Voluntary topic bans are non-binding and the editor therefore does not face strict consequences in breaking their self inflicted ban. Community topic bans are binding and are generally considered to be a negative thing to have placed on oneself. One of the chief problems with community topic is bans is the fact that any of the editors that were involved in the past dispute (i.e. this one) will keep a close eye, waiting for what they believe to be a slip-up. I have seen it happen enough times. They will then race here or to ANI in an attempt to have community wrath brought down upon them. That's one typical way Misplaced Pages loses editors. If you stalk AN long enough, you will notice that there is always a small group of editors that will support a community ban almost every time one is proposed, especially after an incident that generated significant drama. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 11:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Voluntary editing restrictions can be as binding as the community would like to make them; this restriction was discussed on the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents, duly recorded, and a block was once issued for breaking the restrictions. isaacl (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Voluntary restrictions are certainly binding. The basic difference is that instead of an immediate block it allows the editor to revert their mistake and requires AN/I action, allowing them to defend their action. I do not expect violating the restriction. I also see that I made six other statements of agreeing to the temporary moratorium that were lost during an edit conflict, but I doubt they need to be recovered. Apteva (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The only meaningful ban would be one that Apteva is willing to agree to, and that can be made binding. If there is no format for such an agreement, we must make one. If we cannot make such a format, we must form such an agreement anyhow, per WP:IAR. —Neotarf (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Bans are only appropriate if someone just will not quit, often followed by using socks to evade the ban. In this case I have agreed to quit, and so obviously a ban is not called for. If someone avoids a ban, and obviously there is no software that prevents violating a ban, then preventive blocks are issued to stop the continuation. None of this is needed, as I have agreed to edit in a manner that is appropriate. Nothing better could be hoped for. Apteva (talk) 11:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Apteva has voluntarily accepted a 30-day topic ban before, with no subsequent improvement. There is no benefit to the encyclopedia to opposing the topic ban. The note about "as quickly as possible" misses the mark. Apteva's disruption has been going on for months; no one is looking for a rush to judgment, but rather an actually useful outcome to end the disruption. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  But there was some change in behavior during this time, even if the original offending behavior started up again in full force after the time had passed. —Neotarf (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose this attempt at bogus compromise; Apteva is simply trying to get out of trouble and avoid sanctions. As Noetica noted, he's done this before with no change in behavior; he's actually worse this time around. Note also that he prevaricated, to put it politely, about this just before New Year's Eve; he stated at the RFC/U about him that he had already "backed way off" and wasn't going to argue about this issue, but has since done almost nothing but argue about this issue, in at least 3 different forums that I know of. Four, counting this one. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 20:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose—I think that merely resolving the dispute in accordance with consensus should suffice.—I would have hoped so too, but the entire point of this is that Apteva does not hear what consensus is. Apteva can not recognize that there is consensus on this issue, demonstrated time and time again. Instead, Apteva constantly re-opens these discussions. It is very disruptive. discussion on this topic should be limited or even entirely restricted for for a given time—This isn't necessary. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • This is not a case of I do not get what the consensus is, it is a case of a dozen or perhaps only a half dozen editors not wanting to hear that that consensus might not be a consensus at all. This does not need to be discussed here. The fact is that we all need to go back to productive editing instead of filling this wall of text anymore. I get it. Can we move on? Apteva (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose given the amount of circuitous discussion that Apteva et al have been leading on the topic surrounding the whys and wherefores of hyphens-are-better-than-dashes. SInce in practical terms they ought to amount to the same thing, I would prefer to see an imposed topic ban rather than an eleventh-hour face-saving moratorium that can be breached without sanction and can be wikilawyered. -- Ohconfucius  10:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

A resolution to the dispute

Can we agree on the following wording to resolve the entirety of this dispute?

• The recent dispute regarding appropriate usage of hyphens, dashes, endashes, and emdashes has reached a point where continuation of it is neither beneficial to Misplaced Pages, nor conducive to a collaborative editing environment. To resolve this dispute, several things must be realized.
  • First, consensus is on the side of those who favor the extension of current dash usage, as recommended by the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style in its present form. Therefore, editors will continue to use dashes in this style. Although there are valid concerns about the correctness of this approach, it has been approved by consensus.
  • Second, Apteva has agreed to refrain from continued editing and actions related to this topic, when those actions result in changes contrary to consensus-based decisions. This agreement will be recognized by other editors, and will not prohibit Apteva from expressing his views on the matter in his userspace or in the context of non-confrontational, collaborative discussions in the Misplaced Pages talk namespace.
  • Third, Apteva's withdrawal from the abovementioned areas is to be considered voluntary, unless he indicates otherwise at some point in the future.
  • Fourth and finally, discussion of this matter and related negative interactions will cease, given that they are detrimental to our goal on Misplaced Pages, which is, of course, the creation of a free online encyclopedia.

The following editors agree to the above:

1. dci | TALK 16:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC) (as author)

• Support I would agree to this with the striking of "or in the context of non-confrontational, collaborative discussions in the Misplaced Pages talk namespace" since continuation of it is not beneficial to Misplaced Pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It's been done. dci | TALK 17:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Wait – I'd like to hear Apteva's interpretation and promise to abide by this, here, before accepting it. If it accomplishes the same thing as the proposed topic ban, it should be OK. Dicklyon (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  STRONGEST POSSIBLE OPPOSE, given his response above at 21:53, essentially declining to accept the terms proposed here and threatening further disruptioin, followed by this post continuing to characterize the dispute as errors that must be fixed. Does he think he can skirt his "voluntary recusal" by just not using the word "dash" in his comments? Dicklyon (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as straw man to thwart dash/hyphen debates: I see that agreeing to this proposal would implicitly "rule" that dashes are the no-longer-controversial choice for "all Wikipedians" from this day forward, but instead, we cannot allow a threat against Apteva to be bartered by a community promise to not contest a false consensus to use dashes. This is a classic "argument from pity" fallacy, to accept the conclusion so that "poor pitiful Apteva" could live in peace. Nope, it is just another use of Apteva as hostage to the pro-dash onslaught against wp:COMMONNAME spellings with hyphens. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Please allow me to clarify that I have no intention whatsoever of using Apteva as a "hostage", Wikid77; nor am I attempting to thwart constructive discussion. The above proposal is just a summation of what appears to be views that both parties could agree on to resolve the dispute. dci | TALK 19:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose a topic ban would do the same thing and would actually be binding. This is too little too late. --Rschen7754 19:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Per Dicklyon, if it accomplishes the same thing then I guess. But I'm sympathetic to Rschen here; why not make it binding? Why have this conversation all over again if Apteva "indicates otherwise at some point in the future" and starts up the disruptive behavior again? We'd also of course need to hear something explicit from Apteva, which I don't think we have heard at this point. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm attempting to contact Apteva, in the hopes that he'll post an explicit statement here. Regarding the quote you cite, I think that then, if he "indicates otherwise", a topic ban would be appropriate. I'd rather not burden anyone with sanctions if they're genuinely willing to reform or abstain. dci | TALK 20:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

    Well, Apteva does seem to have agreed to 'a temporary "recusal"'—but what is the point of kicking the can down the road here? But sure, if Apteva agrees to stop pushing these issues in any forums on Misplaced Pages—not just temporarily—then that's fine, of course we don't need sanctions. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Conditional support depending on a explicit statement by Apteva. PaleAqua (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Would it be fair to give him until 26:00 or 27:00 to give the statement, then, if not, to pursue the only remaining option? dci | TALK 21:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Seems more than fair. I will reconsider my !votes after that time. Alas, it is probably already too late. PaleAqua (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is to little, too late, and has severe wording and logic problems. For one thing, it badly miscasts the debate with a straw man: No one has proposed any extension of current dash usage"; what has happened is that Apteva and his handful of cronies have attempted to destroy that part of MOS, and have made it clear that it would be the first wave of a long-term concerted attack on the integrity of our style guide, about which they hold WP:CABAL conspiracy theories. Note carefully that no where, ever, at any time, in any forum in which Apteva and crew have waged this holy war against dashes (and diacritics and whatever else is bothering them that month), has Apteva or any of them (Enric Naval, Wikid77 and now LittleBenW) actually acknowledged that they understand that Misplaced Pages consensus has come to a conclusion that differs from theirs. They do not believe that any consensus exists for MOS or anything it says at all. It's all just a grammar-fascist plot, you see. This must end in a topic ban (and a broad one - Apteva and the other frequently behave this way about other issues, not just dashes), or it is just never going to stop. Other issues with your wording: "Dashes" is a superset of "en dashes" and "em dashes". That item's ending in passive voice is grossly inappropriate. Everyone already realizes all of this, but for four individuals. Third point makes no sense; Apteva would never say "make it involuntary!" Fourth is vague and overbroad. I certainly won't agree to censoring myself about punctuation at WT:MOS, or about this WP:AN case and what it means, or whatever it is you don't want people to talk about. A topic ban is a perfectly normal remedy for entrenched patterns of disruptive tendentiousness like Apteva and sidekicks have demonstrated, and there will be no question what it means or whether it can be enforced or just dropped one day. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 21:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I have to say I'm slightly confused by some of your comments. All that was meant by what you call the creation of a straw man was that things shouldn't be changed the way Apteva and others want them to be. I'm not sure what you mean about the passive-voice thing, but I suppose that's probably an error in my wording. As for the content itself, I am not trying to "censor" you or prevent anyone from discussing anything. I'm trying to prevent repetitive, fruitless discussions that have the aim of changing how hyphens and dashes are used. As for myself, I am uncomfortable with silencing someone's relatively-valid opinion on the Manual of Style, and think that the problem could best be stopped with voluntary abstentions. It appears we disagree rather vehemently on this point. dci | TALK 21:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

    Yes, we do, for reasons Noetica has explained clearly: Apteva's made these "voluntary abstention" promises before and gotten worse on the issue not better, even just in the last two weeks! I reiterate that this is the most disruptive (non-vandal) editor I've ever encountered. Should have had a topic ban several months ago already. He's thrown away every last shred of assumption of good faith that that has been proffered. Sorry if I somehow misunderstood your argument as a straw man, but it says what it says; "extension of current dash usage" is the exact opposite of Apteva's goals, as he wants to eliminate it (mostly or entirely, depending on which argument of his you read on what day). Passive: "several things must be realized", which could apply to anyone or everyone. "Apteva must realize several things and clearly indicate understanding of them" would get to the actual point. There is nothing fruitless and often not even repetitive about punctuation discussions at WT:MOS, only when someone with a serious nit-picking axe to grind shows up an tries to bury the talk page in recycled complaints. "Trying to prevent...discussions" you suspect, from a distance, might be "repetitive and fruitless" is "silencing someone's relatively-valid opinion on the Manual of Style", but multiplied by however many people there are participating on the MOS talk page! Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the idea that the needs of the many outweigh those of the one? If a topic has become disruptive because of one editor, the solution is to get that editor to drop it and stop disrupting; not just telling everyone to shut up. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 22:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose latest attempt to dodge the obviously warranted outcome. And what is that sinister outcome? A topic ban! Not Guantánamo, not summary execution, not a site ban – only the community's justified insistence that editors contribute where they are competent, and leave others to do the same unmolested. Now, in particular: This latest dodge fails to cover the range of the conduct issues (see, way above, what the RFC/U actually came up with), and the themes and forums involved. Let the process be finished here; or as SMcCandlish has pointed out, ArbCom is the scheduled next stop for this train. Noetica 21:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• To update anyone commenting in this section, Apteva has explicitly agreed, a few moments ago, to an abstention in one of the above sections. There are so many at this point that it's hard to keep track of them, but I am certain it's up there. dci | TALK 21:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, I was asked to strike the alternate proposal and did so, and asked to reiterate that I will be honoring a voluntary moratorium on discussing hyphens and dashes, and I will be voluntarily honoring a moratorium on discussing dashes and hyphens. There are no proposals that need to be agreed to or opposed, other than ask for an uninvolved editor to close this thread. Should I break that promise, feel free to bring it up at AN/I (briefly), and log any action taken, if any is taken. I strongly doubt that will happen. I am here solely to improve the encyclopedia, as we all are. So now that the drama is over can we all get on to other issues? Apteva (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Um, not, there's still the open issue of an involuntary topic ban, which is supported by a majority of the respondents. Your short-term voluntary "I won't argue about this" proposal has no effect on that. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 22:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Dci, unfortunately this abstention is merely temporary; Apteva has now made that clear. This is very unfortunate. We don't want to go through this again later; this editor has caused enough disruption, and it needs to stop, now, for good. Apteva's ongoing recalcitrance has made it abundantly clear that the only way for this unacceptable disruption to stop is a topic ban. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

  The reason it is temporary should be obvious. The moratorium amounts to not using the letter k. While I can certainly agree to not bring it up or discuss it right now, it will certainly be appropriate to bring it up or discuss it at some point in the future. When is a question that has an obvious answer. When the time is right. I am not the first editor who has suggested this topic and I will definitely not be the last. Saying that I can never discuss the letter k is absurd. Saying that right now there are editors who are sick and tired of me bringing up the topic, is reason enough to respect that, even though I can certainly think of better alternatives, all of which are moot at the present time. Apteva (talk) 11:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I would refer to my comment above. -- Ohconfucius  10:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose any compromise based on a topic ban (voluntary or otherwise) that is of fixed duration because that would merely defer the problem as Apteva is driven to explain to everyone why they are wrong. Perhaps other people are wrong, but endlessly going on about something like dashes is the worst kind of disruption as it drives away sane editors. It doesn't matter whether Apteva is right or wrong (the wiki will survive), but the disruption needs to stop, not merely be deferred. Johnuniq (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikihounding against Apteva

As an uninvolved editor who did not realize Misplaced Pages's forcing of en dashes into titles was so peculiar, unusual, and rare compared to widespread use of hyphens in titles as spelled in over 92% of wp:RS reliable sources, I first became alarmed by some low-key, understated remarks made by User:Apteva in late 2012. When I looked at the history behind the unusual forced use of dashes as pushed by wp:DASH, I found some people objected to overuse of dashes but they were ignored. Then, to my shock, several users have kept attacking Apteva with unfounded claims of "disruption" as listed in wp:Requests_for_comment/Apteva, but with little evidence to show a pattern of "disruption" rather than merely continual posts about the rare use of dashes in real-world titles where the wp:COMMONNAME spelling uses hyphens in the vast preponderance of sources. Now that this wp:AN topic has spawned a "ban Apteva" section, posted by the exact same editor who had initiated the wp:Requests_for_comment/Apteva (created-4771), who also posted the most (2x higher) edits to RFC/Apteva, I think a pattern of hounding is becoming clear. I invite others here to post evidence of how long this pattern has continued, also by other potential wp:TAGTEAM editors, to determine the extent of the abuse, and what can be done to protect Apteva from further attacks. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I left you a note at your talkpage regarding the recent dispute. dci | TALK 19:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, as I am really concerned that wp:advocacy for pro-dash styles has gone awry. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikid77 is the furthest thing from an uninvolved editor; he so deep in the thick of this "issue" that I've recommended he be included in the sanctions. I have long half-suspected he's a sockpuppet of Apteva, or vice versa, but I'm not sure the prose style is similar enough for that to be true. The so-called logic and the tendentiousness are a 100% match, though. Wikid77 should not cite WP:ADVOCACY, as one of his principal activities for the last two weeks here has been acting as as Apteva's advocate. Kind of an unusual spin on "wikilawyering". The only WP:TAGTEAM at work here is Apteva, Wikid77, Enric Naval and, lately, LittleBenW. Note also the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT again – Wikid77, like his comrades-in-arms in their stylistic holy war, has had it explained to him again and again and again that WP:AT (and its WP:COMMONNAME section) address matters of substance, and rely on WP:MOS for matters of style. Everyone on the system appears to understand this, with zero cognitive dissonance, except these four editors. And they are not stupid or insane, it's a safe bet, since their mainspace edits seem sensible. Thus, this can only be a trolling game they are playing to make a disruptive point, all at Misplaced Pages's expense. PS: Wikid77 needs to re-read WP:HOUNDING, since he's obviously badly misinterpreted it. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 20:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Wikid is "uninvolved"? Not according to this stern warning from admin Bisanz, about Wikid's post at Apteva's talkpage, headed "Beyond dashes" (well worth a look). And Wikid has recently posted a long four-part tirade against en dashes at WP:TITLE. Wrong forum, dead horse, implacable resistance to consensus choices already made. There's involvement and involvement. No one has to warn me for posting a war plan at a co-conspirator's talkpage. My publicly declared agenda is to serve, along with some others posting here, in the consensual development of MOS, and the quite separate area of rational article titling to serve the readers in the best way we can. Some editors have zero expertise in these areas; some of us have a great deal, and we just want to get on with the job. Wikid, Apteva, and one or two others have made doing that job all but impossible. So we have no option but to follow correct procedures in search of a solution. Hence this discussion, toward the decisive and measured outcome that the community has voted for at the RFC/U. Noetica 22:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, considering his tens of thousands of bytes of comments defending Aptiva, egging him on, and maligning the MOS, it is shocking that Wikid77 would refer to himself as "uninvolved". His Dec. 2 edit summary "endorse proposal to keep fighting excessive-dash rules in wp:MOS)" set the tone. They even whined to Jimbo about it together! Jimbo was not amused. In fact Wikid77's anti-en-dash lobbying extended even way beyond Apteva's narrower theory opposing en dashes in proper names; Wikid77 single-handedly opposed en dash even in eye–hand coordination and Michelson–Morley experiment for example, and acted like someone was proposing to use en dashes indiscriminately in places like double-barreled surnames (no such proposal has ever been made, yet he spent a lot of ink lobbying against it!). Dicklyon (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment nobody's hounding him, nobody's following him around WP and reverting his edits. He's so ever-present around these pages (particularly MOS and AT) that he's difficult to avoid. The criticism he's generated was something he has brought upon himself. -- Ohconfucius  10:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

  That is he or she, thank you. But, I think that is a stretch. I can think of at least one who has quite likely been watching my edits like hawk, perhaps hoping that I will make one that warrants a block, and spending inordinate amounts of time doing that. But no there is no one that is reverting all of my edits. And nor am I watching anyone's edits, other than watching everyone's edits (WP:RCP). Apteva (talk) 11:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Compare this to other cases

I'm frankly rather shocked at how some people are are trying to bend over backward to keep assuming good faith in the face of a mountain of proof against it. See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Darkstar1st: violation of policy at WP:DISRUPT, failure or refusal to get the point, tendentious editing. It's so similar, they could almost be the same user, down to ever detail – ever prevarication, ever broken promise, every fallacious debate tactic, every pretense that consensus isn't really against them, etc., etc. No one at that incident report is trying to help the problem editor dodge a long-overdue topic ban. And Darkstar1st has been considerably less disruptive than Apteva. The key to both cases is the unresolvable conflict between trite and non-credible apologetic language on one hand, and repeated, almost wiki-suicidal, refusal to acknowledge that consensus is not on their side. In both cases it ultimately means "I will do it again, and you can't stop me." At any given time WP:AN, WP:AN/I and/or WP:ARBCOM usually have several such cases ongoing that fit this exact pattern. Policies, guidelines and essays like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:TE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NOTHERE, etc. were not written because someone like that "might" show up some day, but because they're already here, the personality type is readily identifiable and toxic in a collaborative editing project, and individuals who evince it are a serious problem here. One that cannot be dealt with though voluntary promises. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 21:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• I understand and respect your concerns about the way "some of us" have responded to the dispute. But there are reasons why some of us have done things the way we have. I, for one, think that disputes and problems of this nature ought to be handled by realizing them for what they are. They are pointless attempts to alter things from what consensus has determined to what a minority prefers. Those in the minority tend to have good intentions and often are reasonable or even excellent editors, yet they create disruptions by their actions. To end these disruptions, we shouldn't slap people with a "topic ban" or some similar sanction. We shouldn't fight misguided offensives with well-planned campaigns; these approaches only reinforce problems which have led to the issues described here . Instead, we should do our best as editors to resolve the issues, not by shutting them down and shelving them. In some cases, it means explaining what's gone wrong, and then accepting a statement of abstention, which I hope to see here within the next few hours. dci | TALK 21:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • DCI:

Been there, done that; didn't work, won't work again.

Noetica 22:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

And there's no "issue" with MOS to resolve or shelve; it's just noise. One editor (or even three) trying to pull a WP:FILIBUSTER do not magically force consensus to its knees at gunpoint until it changes. The only issue here is tendentious, pointy, trollish, disruptive editing that goes against consensus (and a consensus that was established through a big, formal process). The remedy for that is simple: Topic ban. It's just how this gets handled, routinely, when the disruptiveness rises anywhere near this level. This case is very unusual for the amount of abuse the community has tolerated and the length of time we've let it go on, with numerous parties trying to reason with Apteva and co., to no avail. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 22:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Please note that Apteva has agreed to what is effectively a long-term abstention, making a decision above to work on more productive things. dci | TALK 23:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

So? It didn't last before, or the time before that. Why would it this time? Just minutes ago, Apteva posted yet another message claiming that MOS is wrong. Can you not see the pattern here? Consensus simply does not exist for this editor unless it happens to conveniently agree with his pre-conceived notions. There's a saying, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." How many times are you going to let Apteva fool you? Isn't twice enough already? — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 23:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Basically the issue is someone puts something into WP, and it is wrong. I fixed something in a BLP by request from someone who personally knew the person. It was really unbelievable the length that it took to change the consensus opinion that the wrong information was wrong. I do a lot of WP:RM and I see a lot of contention. I do not care how many times someone brings up that Foo should be spelled Foobar. We have an orderly process for dealing with it. We allow debate for seven days, then attempt to choose one or the other using well established policy. If someone brings it up again that day, no problem. If they bring it up again too many times we create a subpage to discuss the issue, so that it is discussed in an orderly fashion and does not interfere with other items that need to be discussed on the talk page. This issue is no different than any other contentious issue. It does not take walls of discussion to resolve. Nor is it appropriate to ban or block everyone who disagrees, or brings it up. For now, I certainly have other more important things to do. And once again, happy new year. Apteva (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Previous discussion on confining this debate to a subpage or "list", a compromise Apteva might have accepted at that time. Art LaPella (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• • This is basically proof that you need a topic ban. Even after an RFC/U and a AN proposing a topic ban you just will not stop arguing that there is no consensus and that MOS is "wrong" and that you are "right". You're clearly going to hold this view until the end of your days, and you're never going to let it rest unless the community effectively forces you to do so or be banned. This "issue" is not contentious. No one is contending but you and two or three others. One or a handful of angry ranting voices is does not make a sea change at being louder and more aggressive and out-of-hand just cements resolve to not feed the trolls. You are not, for the love of whatever you believe in, being topic banned because you disagree with something; it's because you constantly, willfully, seemingly haughtily and for your own self-gratification, violate WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:DE, WP:TD, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:BATTLEFIELD, WP:GREATWRONGS, WP:POINT, WP:CONSENSUS, etc., etc., etc., all in the name of WP:WINNING on something WP:LAME. If you were actually correct about hyphens, I would still support a topic ban, because no one has a right to violate virtually every other policy and guideline we have governing editor interaction, for months on end, making everyone interacting with him miserable, just because a trivial fact about a punctuation mark turned out to be on his side and he just wouldn't let the matter go. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 23:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
    • May I suggest the following? We ought to focus not on forcing Apteva to "conform" his beliefs, but on ending this dispute as reasonably as possible. At this point, given the other comments Apteva has made that demonstrate a willingness to move on to other things, we should allow people to go their own ways with their own thoughts. Misplaced Pages is, after all, the 💕. dci | TALK 23:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Apteva can believe whatever he wants; that's not the issue at all. Continuing to argue a point in forum after forum when you're being RFC/U'd and WP:AN'd for doing so tendentiously is a sign that something is seriously off-kilter between the user and the project. Apteva only a few days ago (and not for the first time) made a similar promise to move on to other things and stay away from this issue, but within hours was right back at it, and has been at it, arguing this infernal anti-dash nonsense, on at least four different pages the entire time (here, RFC/U, WT:AT and WT:MOS, probably others). Apteva's "comments...that demonstrate a willingness to move on" are not credible. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 00:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

  That is he or she thank you. The above post of mine has absolutely nothing to do with the MOS. I did not say "someone puts something wrong into the MOS". I said "someone puts something into WP, and it is wrong". Happens thousands of times every day. Some get fixed, some not. We try to fix errors when we find them, but some are more obscure than others and harder to find RSs that can be used to correct them. To suggest that I was talking about the MOS is blatantly false. Believe me, I appreciate the blue links, and read all of them, but it is not in Misplaced Pages's principles to try to introduce errors, or to try to suppress anyone from bringing them up, although it can be extremely frustrating for someone who has not made a few thousand edits to understand how to get it done and how not to get it done. And no I am not talking about the MOS. Apteva (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Whatever. You were earlier, and yesterday, and the day before that, and the day before that, and... Just ignore the first 5 words of my prior response to you ("This is basically proof that") and I still stand by every word of it. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 00:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• When Apteva wrote "Basically the issue is someone puts something into WP, and it is wrong", he was basically justifying his continuing disruption by his usual argument, that his only intention is to fix what's "wrong". Basically, the problem is that he thinks he is the only authority that can determine what's wrong. That's why this response is a violation of the "voluntary recusal" that he had half-heartedly agree to; by continuing to push this tired point of view, he is proving his inability to let go, to respect consensus, or to hear the community. It's a lost cause to try to compromise with him. Dicklyon (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• This issue has nothing to do with my beliefs or knowledge. I check how many sources use one spelling how many use another, and if there are more, in this case 50 times as many, I recommend that we use the 50 times as many way. It is not rocket science, and it is not my belief, and I would be astonished if anyone or more than a very few, thought we should use the spelling that only 1/50 use. Apteva (talk) 07:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think it's possible for SMcCandlish to engage in polite and rational discussion. Maybe he has never heard of the Golden Rule? Maybe Misplaced Pages needs a separate namespace for bullying and insulting people, for canvassing and organizing lynching mobs? LittleBen (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• PS: Echoing Art LaPella's suggestion above: <quote>Previous discussion on confining this debate to a subpage or "list", a compromise Apteva might have accepted at that time.<unquote> LittleBen (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• WP is nothing but compromise. No one gets to have anything "their way" we all work together, cooperatively, and harmoniously, to create Misplaced Pages. All disputes are always resolved by compromise. And seriously, I appreciate all of the suggestions and I am certain that everyone will be pleased with the results. Apteva (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Um... very much not. One of the most serious problems with a demand for compromise is that it motivates each party to stake out their most extreme position. In the context of Misplaced Pages, compromise is especially inappropriate if it means departure from a neutral and appropriately balanced point of view. That's not to say that compromise can't work, but the statement that "all disputes are always resolved by compromise" is flat-out wrong.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

  One of the difficulties of English is that can often be misinterpreted. By compromise what I meant is that we all work together cooperatively, and harmoniously. Nobody expects to "get what they want". Everybody expects to compromise with other opinions in favor of adopting a consensus view. Not that we always compromise the best answer for a worse one that is a compromise between the two suggested wordings. That is a different meaning of compromise than was intended. I was using the first meaning, not the second. wikt:compromise Apteva (talk) 05:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It is troubling to see two editors who are, shall we say, not well-regarded here, try to advise Apteva on how to be a successful editor. —Neotarf (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

List other editors told to not oppose dashes

I am wondering which other editors have been badgered to keep quiet and not oppose dashes, after reading the above, intense remarks, as insisting that User:Apteva not even hint at problems in Misplaced Pages which might be considered to include problems with incorrect statements in the wp:MOS (Manual of Style). I am extremely concerned that others editors have likely been threatened to keep quiet and not oppose the overuse of dashes in titles which have used the wp:COMMONNAME form as spelled with hyphens for years, decades, or centuries. The amount of vitriol, hostilely aimed at Apteva, seems completely unjustified by one person's actions, and it appears that Apteva is being hounded for punishment in retaliation for other editors who dared to oppose the demands to use dashes where rarely used in the world at large. More investigation is needed to list other users who have been pressured to keep quiet about the excessive use of dashes, or perhaps other hotly-debated issues of the wp:MOS document which have been fought by threatening the opponents. This debate is not just about a 3-pixel difference in "short horizontal lines" (dashes/hyphens) but rather, an intense form of cyberbullying which needs to be studied in more detail. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Is RFC/U enough?

Just as is seemed as if the waters would be calmed by Apteva's apparent willingness to agree to a voluntary topic ban, individuals drawn to the disruption have been busy elsewhere at WP:TITLE WT:Article titles#Hyphen anecdotes and at the Arbcom's capitalization case "Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions" —Neotarf (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps an RFC/U for each editor who discussed dashes over 6 months: As I noted above, there are numerous editors who have been arguing (and fighting) about the hyphen/dash problems (longer than my 1-month discussion), and Apteva has walked into a minefield of past resentments, pent-up anger, or repressed rage about former editors who opposed the push for overuse of dashes where hyphens were the common-name choice for decades, with perhaps other issues about the wp:MOS document, where Apteva re-ignited old conflicts and raised the ire of prior editors who were tired of people not consenting to "their" prior consensus. The whole concept of "consensus" is to get the consent of nearly all participants, acting in good-faith efforts; otherwise, a simple vote of the majority would make the decisions (see how wp:consensus is not really us-versus-them, as a vote would be?). However, many people just do not understand that is how we defined consensus back in 2006, when the issue of "supramajority" was questioned as a potential deciding factor in disputes. The next person who walks through the door, with different ideas, then helps to determine the new consensus. The fundamental key to consensus is easy to show: "Two people debate an issue, and one reports they have reached consensus, but the other disagrees". Bingo. That is called a "false consensus". Yet, still, the results of "no consensus" need to be understood, where no rules can be imposed because no rule is agreed to meet a consensus viewpoint. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC

Could an admininstrator please close Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st. TFD (talk) 07:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

There's been almost no comments there. It's fairly inactive. I would have a hard time summarizing any consensus from the small number of comments and endorsements there. --Jayron32 04:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it really should be closed as without merit in regards to community opinion as only a couple of the involved in the disputes have commented , so there is not community interest or assessment of the situation and that RFC should not be considered as a reason to allow escalation to Arbitration - It does need to be closed though as its been open long enough as per guidelines , hasn't it? - certified on the 20th of November , open for 6 weeks - and as such I second the request for closure - I am uninvolved imo and willing to close it myself if no admin wants to ? Youreallycan 07:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Closed - Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Darkstar1st - Youreallycan 07:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• update - my closure has been reverted by User:RolandR diff - with the edit summary, Reverted to revision 530915559 by RolandR: Undoing closure, since this did not meet any of the criteria in Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing. (TW)) - Youreallycan 14:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It should really be something left to an admin to close. Tarc (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
    • YRC, you said that you were willing to close "if no admin wants to" and yet waited less than half-an-hour before doing so? GiantSnowman 15:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I closed it 24 hours after the un-actioned request here - also tarc - there is no requirement for an admin only close - I was uninvolved in the rfc user and with the user in question - I am not seeing any dispute with the details and rationale of my close? - Youreallycan 15:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it isn't a requirement but it is one of those things that's usually a pretty good idea. If someone sees an admin closure they're far less likely to slam the undo button, IMO. Tarc (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The closure was clearly invalid. According to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing, "Certified disputes may be closed under any of the following circumstances: If no additional complaints are registered for an extended period of time, and the dispute appears to have stopped. From the main page, such RfC/Us are typically "delisted due to inactivity.", The dispute proceeds to another method of dispute resolution, such as mediation or arbitration, The parties and/or participants to the dispute agree (via a motion on the talk page of that rFc/u)."

It is evident that none of these applies: the dispute continues, and further complaints are still being made; there has been no move to another method of dispute resolution; and the parties have not agreed to a closure, certainly not on the RfC/U talk page. In these circumstances, even an admin closure would have been inappropriate, let alone one by a passing non-admin. RolandR (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You really should strike everything following the comma in that last sentence. There's always more to read, it seems. --Nouniquenames 05:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Cyberpower678

I am currently applying to be a member of BAG and input is greatly appreciated.—cyberpower _Offline 13:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

There really aren't many admin who have the technical knowledge to express an informed opinion. We generally just wait for things to go wrong.©Geni 18:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

BAG pages are not really that visible, and so it has been part of the policy since time immemorial that nominations have to be broadly spammed all over the place :D Snowolf 21:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Time immemorial = July 3, 2008. MBisanz 19:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That the time it has been in the bot policy, it was required way before that despite not being in the policy. Snowolf 01:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Time immemorial means since April 2007 which was when the concept of spamming boards started out :) Snowolf 01:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that was back in 2007 when I hated BAG (as did other members of the community). I don't remember if I actually sent it to MFD, but I know someone else did. They (and I) have changed since then. Oh, the good old days... --Rschen7754 22:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Usurping accounts with a large number of edits

There is an ongoing discussion at Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Large usurp, regarding the appropriate way to handle a request to usurp an account belonging to a now-banned editor with a large number (5500) of edits. The bureaucrats have asked for additional input. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone thinks 5500 edits is a large number? — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 20:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Quick read on an unblock request

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

Now comes Ranger1991 (talk · contribs), who was blocked indef in May 2008 as a vandalism-only account. The account's history largely bears that out - 17 edits from August 2007 to May 2008, all the sort of juvenile kids-screwing-around flavor of vandalism we've all seen before. Good block, to all appearances. Now, over 4 years later, the editor has come back requesting unblock. They acknowledge that they screwed up and that they were deservedly blocked, but note that it has been a long time - they have changed. If unblocked, the editor plans to correct grammatical and spelling errors. I can see a case here for unblocking, but am not willing to pull the trigger on such a gamble without getting some further input. The blocking editor (User:Gwernol) retired in June 2009. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 13:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Support unblock People can change a lot in four years - give him some WP:ROPE and see what he does with it. If the vandalism does reoccur, reblocking is no big deal. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. No evidence of socking; seems like a good WP:OFFER case. From the username, I'm guessing that the user was 16 when the vandalism began and that he's 21 now, which can make a huge difference. Nyttend (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Though I did not ask about the user's age, your analysis matches my own - and is precisely why I raised the issue here. God knows what a douchebag I would have been had I been an editor here at 16. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 14:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Four years is a long time. I say we give em a chance. AIRcorn (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - seems easy enough to monitor if it's not genuine. Jauerback/_dude. 14:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support unblock (Non-administrator comment) - 17 vandalism edits 4 years ago... Excellent candidate for a standard offer without prejudice to reblocking if vandalism re-occurs. Salvidrim! 14:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support unblock per standard offer. KTC (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Indeed, 4 years later is well beyond the standard offer. — ΛΧΣ 14:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Sure. I guess he must really like the username; I'm sure no one would ever have noticed if a user with a couple of dozen edits from half a decade ago created a new account, even if it would technically have been block evasion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - as someone who began his own Misplaced Pages career as a 17-year-old IP vandal, I can understand the editor's regret & maturity. GiantSnowman 15:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Aircorn.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support absolutely! and we can always reblock him later if issues arise Snowolf 15:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support indeed someone can change allot in 4 years. ·Add§hore· 15:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Note - I've unblocked Ranger based on the discussion above. Here's hoping we gained a productive contributor today, as opposed to losing yet another. Ed  15:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Notification: Global Lock of User:Fête

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

As requested by a Steward, I am notifying enwiki that User:Fête has been globally locked from editing all Wikimedia projects, following persistent abuse across frwiki, frwikt, enwiki, enwikt. I am unsure which template(s) should be applied to his userspace, so I will leave that for someone here to take care of. Salvidrim! 18:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

{{Indefblocked-global}}, I think.--ukexpat (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Placed. It should be replaced if we have a globally-locked template, but I don't know of any. Nyttend (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

{{Locked global account}}. Legoktm (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

"And there was much rejoicing!" --Orange Mike | Talk 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

User and talk page protection required

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

Hi, can someone please place a protection on my user and talk pages? I seem to have attracted the attention of a complete idiot and I've no doubt it will go on even though I've warned him that I'll go to the police if it continues. I suspect the problem has arisen because I twice challenged an IP who was attacking another user. It looks a safe bet that it's the same person. Relevant diffs are this, this, this, this and this. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. --Old Lanky (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Most of those diffs are by you. I only see two IP edits on your user page and talk page. That doesn't necessitate protection yet.--v/r - TP 21:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Violations of WP:NLT don't help either. Rutebega (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Quite. Frankly, Old Lanky, looking at the comments you've highlighted what I see is you starting by assuming bad faith and then accelerating far past the level of propriety. Ironholds (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

See latest post by the troll who is convinced I am operating two accounts and has the gall to accuse me of being "ill" when by their very nature all trolls are sick, sad inadequate individuals. Even if his allegation about dual accounts should be true, why that should matter when all my edits are bona fide I do not know, but I'm seeing some very strange ideas at work on this site. Same troll has been attacking User:AssociateAffiliate per my challenges to him as listed above. It must be obvious that this is a persistent individual. As for "violating NLT", are you not aware that "trolling" is illegal in GB and that victims of online harrassment are encouraged to report it to the police. If it goes on I will certainly do that and you can stuff your NLT. If you think I am violating site directives by defending myself against personal attacks then go ahead and block my account. I'm beginning to doubt the wisdom of using this site if editors have no protection from the idiots of this world. Perhaps you should investigate a pattern here as the troll must be attacking other people besides AssociateAffiliate and now myself. Is he free to roam at will because the admins are virtually ineffective? What a waste of time this is turning out to be. --Old Lanky (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

If you're not going to provide any diffs of harassment, these are flat-out personal attacks. I leave it to the discretion of the administrator corps to decide whether an immediate block for legal threats is needed (IMHO it is), but if you continue to engage in such incivility without documenting that it is warranted, you'll get yourself blocked for that alone. — Francophonie&Androphilie 12:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Try this one for size and a "footnote" appended a few minutes afterwards. --Old Lanky (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates

Hey, everyone! We're about to come out of our holiday period, and could use a little more participation while people are still trickling back, particularly as we're ending the extensions on the candidacies we were doing around the Christmas.

It's a fairly relaxed process, so long as you've read the WP:Featured picture criteria and like looking at artworks, it's worth giving it a try!

Adam Cuerden 21:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Moshe Friedman

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/Moshe_Friedman Need help because the editor there continues cursing and using foul language. The indidivual Friedman is a radical extremist and they keep saying cannot refer to him as bad simply because he's alive. Well that isnt what wiki rules are. Please assist. Tellyuer1 (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks as if Tellyuer, having unsuccessfully tried to get the article deleted, is disputing the situation with everyone else at the article; most of the recent edits have been them undoing him, typically referring to WP:BLP or WP:RS, or saying that the revisions are unsourced. Nyttend (talk) 07:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Cut-n-paste move cleanup at 2012 Hama offensive and Hama offensive (2012-2013)

User:EkoGraf performed a cut-n-paste move of content from Hama offensive (2012-2013) to 2012 Hama offensive, leaving the entire edit history at the former (now a redirect). Could an admin step in and clean this mess up? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved KTC (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

serious map issues

The File:UNSC 2013.PNG has a serious problem as India and Colombia have not been coloured. Sport and politics (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

That file is on Commons, so you should raise the issue there with the uploader. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I will do. In the mean time I have removed the image from the article. How does one go about raising this on Commons as I have never been on the commons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sport and politics (talk • contribs) 02:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

C:SD is a bittie full

Just a quick heads up if anyone wants something to do for the next thirty minutes. — foxj 00:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile weapons and the redirects of doom™

The above thread leads nicely onto this - since the article was deleted, Legobot (talk · contribs) has tagged all the redirects to that page as G8s despite them all containing histories that probably need(ed?) to be kept for licensing. Are we okay to delete them now that the target has been nuked? — foxj 00:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, all pretty much gone now. — foxj 01:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm assuming there is consensus for G8 deletions of redirects to a deleted page, otherwise I doubt a bot would've been approved for the task. Salvidrim! 02:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I know of no such consensus, and would oppose it. Redirects to a deleted page can indeed contain valuable history. Jclemens (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

A quick investigation shows nothing like this on Legobot's page, nothing listed recently for BAG, and these G8 taggings don't seem to have taken place prior to mid-December. The taggings all look like valid g8 tags, but the end result is that a lot of material--the histories under the redirects--is being lost when articles that had been redirect targets are deleted. I don't think that such wholesale purging of otherwise-inoffensive content was what was intended by G8, even if it does seem to fall within the scope of G8's current wording. Jclemens (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough

Resolved by motion at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that:

In the Rich Farmbrough case, the revised Finding of Fact 8, enacted on 28 May 2012 is vacated. Nothing in this decision constitutes an endorsement by the Committee of Rich Farmbrough's use of administrative tools to unblock his own accounts.

For the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk)  · @114  ·  01:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Peter M. Ferreira Article Deletion & Abusive IP Editor

Can someone please assess this article on Peter M. Ferreira as well as the edits & behavior of the user User_talk:71.232.222.228. The IP editor in question created this vanity page & is now being abusive & destructive to others and has even threatened legal action if their IP is blocked. --SpyMagician (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Need to unblacklist template title

Could someone please unblacklist Template:Did you know nominations/Shitterton? I need to create it for an April Fool's Day DYK but I'm getting a message that "The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism." Prioryman (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I've just created it as a blank page. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. Prioryman (talk) 09:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)