Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:33, 10 January 2013

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

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

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

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

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Misplaced Pages discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old
• Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion
• Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers/Log
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus

(Initiated 37 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 103 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 459#RFC_Jerusalem_Post

(Initiated 83 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

would like to see what close is. seems like it was option 1 in general, possibly 1/2 for IP area. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Genocide#RfC: History section, adding native American and Australian genocides as examples

(Initiated 73 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Australia#RFC: Should the article state that Indigenous Australians were victims of genocide?

(Initiated 72 days ago on 8 November 2024), RFC expired weeks ago. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 57 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. Bogazicili (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion has slowed on the RFC. TarnishedPath 07:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Done.—S Marshall T/C 18:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Catholic Church#RfC: Establishing an independent Catholicism article

(Initiated 24 days ago on 26 December 2024) Requesting closure from uninvolved impartial third party to close a discussion that has not seen a novel argument for a bit. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 18#Category:Belarusian saints

(Initiated 30 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6#Category:Misplaced Pages oversighters

(Initiated 30 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6#Redundant WPANIMATION categories

(Initiated 13 days ago on 6 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 116 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 82 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Survey

(Initiated 73 days ago on 7 November 2024) Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. CNC (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Note: I'm happy to perform the merge if required, as have summarised other sections of this article already with consensus. I realise it's usually expected to perform splits or merges when closing discussions, but in this case it wouldn't be needed. CNC (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 22 days ago on 27 December 2024) Proposed merge discussion originally opened on 30 May 2024, closed on 27 October 2024, and reopened on 27 December 2024 following the closure being overturned at AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Selected Ambient Works Volume II#Proposed merge of Stone in Focus into Selected Ambient Works Volume II

(Initiated 13 days ago on 6 January 2025) Seeking uninvolved closure; proposal is blocking GA closure czar 11:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal to supersede consensus #50

(Initiated 9 days ago on 10 January 2025) Seeking uninvolved closure; its degenerated into silly sniping and has clearly run its course. Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Yup, the discussion does need to be closed. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

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)

Post-close notice

The closer did not specifically take note of the community's consensus to ban Apteva from pushing "any position ... against the MOS being applicable to article titles", and now Apteva has restarted his disruption along that line, by introducing a proposal at WT:TITLE that is so far from any possible acceptability as to be disruptive even if it were not specifically banned behavior. I will ask the closer to review his closing statement and see if he is willing clarify the terms of the topic ban to Apteva. Dicklyon (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

Opposition to a topic ban

A resolution to the dispute

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)

  Isn't that called "paranoia"? You and Wikid77 are essentially inescapable, you bring typographical nonsense up so redundantly in so many places. It's one of the major reasons you're being recommended for a topic ban to begin with. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 11:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps consensus has changed (or didn't exist that way), but a small contingent of very vocal editors drown out the community as a whole who might be perfectly happy using the more accessible (and possibly more correct here) character. --Nouniquenames 06:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not what happened here though. A small contingent of very vocal editors started forum-shopping to show that changed consensus, but got no support. The editors you allude to as very vocal only became very vocal after being "normally vocal" resulted in continuing WP:IDHT from the small contingent of disruptive editors. The community as a whole, that hypothetical entity, would have to actually chime if their perfectly happy preference is to become a new consensus (WP:SILENCE), and the forum shopping presented them plenty of opportunity to do so. But it turns out that the community as a whole is perfectly happy with the current consensus and would be happier without the disruption of the small contingent of very vocal editors. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:49, 9 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)

You're right that this is not about a 3-pixel difference in horizontal lines. It's about your incessant disruptive forum-shopping over your abject refusal to accept that consensus is against you on this dashes-and-hyphens point. Rather than let this lie for even one day, you've gone and flooded WT:AT with off-topic rants against dashes again. I've suggested multiple times for good reason that this proposed topic ban needs to apply equally to Apteva, you, and LittleBenW (who has engaged in similar behavior, almost immediately after being topic-banned for doing the same thing with regard to diacritics). All three of you, who edit in lockstep as a single-minded anti-MOS editing WP:GANG, need to stay out of MOS and AT discussions until you understand WP policy and community norms better and stop turning forum after forum into scorched earth. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 11:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow. That comment sort of backs up Wikid's point incredibly well. Just saying... --Nouniquenames 15:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I stand by every word of it. Wikid77 displays a consistent and downright defiant refusal to address WP policy and procedures the way site-wide consensus does, instead willfully misinterpreting anything and everything whenever it is convenient for him to do so. He then launches debate after debate in forum after forum, recycling the same faux issues endlessly with a long-running game of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. He has been pushing these misinterpretations of policy and his necessarily fallacious conclusions draw from them, with a forumshopping tendentiousness that has become quite disruptive. This has jack to do with dashes and hyphens, and everything to do with gaming the system and browbeating editors all over the site, on article talk pages, at guidelines and policies, at the village pump, you name it, over and over again, all just to "win" a Crusade-level campaign about some piece of stylistic trivia. My message is Stop the disruptive editing and back away from the horse carcass, then get up to speed on how WP actually operates before bringing up this crap again. That's completely different from "keep quiet and not oppose dashes". If you seriously believe WP:HOUNDING applies, as Wikid77 claims, simply because I've been critical of this long-running, coordinated pattern of disruption, feel free to AN/I me. There's a motion at page-bottom to just close this entire section, including this subsection. If you have further issues with me (like, maybe, explaining what policies you think I have violated that made you suggest that I be topic banned), you know where my talk page is. This WP:AN case isn't about me, it's about Apteva, Wikid77 and LittleBenW. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 14:54, 10 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)

  That would be unbelievably WP:POINTy, and would flood the RFC system. No one is upset with Apteva for anything to do with "former editors". You have no idea what you are talking about and have not been paying attention. Apteva is being WP:AN'd for Apteva's actions, as are you for yours, albeit less formally, though I'm tempted to make it a formal proposal for an independent topic ban after your flooding of WT:AT with more off-topic obsessive forum shopping. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 11:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Apply the same topic ban as Apteva to Wikid77 and LittleBenW

I formally propose that the exact same topic ban applied to Apteva also be applied to Wikid77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and LittleBenW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), for near-identical patterns of abusive, tendentious, forum-shopping disruption, as noted above in the WP:AN regarding Aptiva, as well as at the Apteva RFC/U, and at WT:MOS, and at WT:AT, and at WP:VPP, etc. In particular, please note:

• Wikid77's anti-MOS collusion on Apteva's talk page for which Wikid77 was block-warned; his combativeness in all of these forums; and his recent WP:BATTLEGROUND-spamming of WT:AT with completely irrational, off-topic rants about dashes and MOS, despite being warned by an admin not to engage in such activities. Like Apteva, Wikid77 has entirely worn out both the community's patience and any capacity for us to assume good faith any longer. See the several "planning out how to take down MOS" threads at User talk:Apteva/Archive 4, especially #Beyond dashes, which incidentally also indicates direct participation by Enric Naval, who now disavows any further involvement. See also Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Discussion of hyphens for endashes, wherein Wikid77 makes it clear he is not quibbling over specific uses of en dashes, but wants to entirely ban them in favor of commas and brackets, a position that has no support whatsoever. (He's entitled to have whatever opinion he likes, but not to disrupt forum after forum about it.) Evidence gathered by Dicklyon earlier: Wikid77's WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality laid bare: "endorse proposal to keep fighting excessive-dash rules in wp:MOS)" set the tone. He and Apteva even whined to Jimbo about it together! (Note the long array of blatant straw man arguments that mischaracterize MOS's actual punctuation advice, and cast everthing in terms of conflict.) Jimbo was not amused. Here's another: Wiki77 opposed closure of the pointless, forumshopped WP:VPP thread against dashes with "Too late to stop this thread" and "There's no stopping this discussion", an obvious WP:WINNING-focused stance. The noisome thread was, of course, summarily closed as no consensus to change MOS to stop recommending the appropriate use of dashes; Wikid77, like Apteva, nevertheless continued in the jihad, right up to this very day. User:John also notes this and this, re: previous Wikid77 topic ban. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 12:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• LittleBenW passed that point some while ago and has already been blocked and topic-banned for it, with no meaningful effect at all. He took up this anti-MOS, anti-dash issue, posting at the Apteva RFC/U in support, immediately after being subject to a nearly identical topic-ban for his tendentious campaigning against diacritics; he is WP:GAMING the system to return to anti-MOS verbal rampages by simply swapping one pet peeve he can browbeat everyone about for another. An argument can be made that this actually deserves an extended block as well as a topic-ban, and perhaps a community ban. Retracted: Since he only just got involved in the dash/hyhen mess, I don't think LittleBenW's participation in it rises to that level yet, on re-examination; but it's clearly an in-spirit evasion of the topic ban intended to get him to stop being disruptive on style issues. It is clearly bad-faith behavior and an observably established habitual role of abuse of the system. See also conspiracy theory about MOS as "thought police", block for similar disruption re: diacritics, diacritics MOS topic ban, blocked again for NPA relating to the same AN/I, supporting Apteva and Wikid77 at WP:Requests for comment/Apteva and its talk page (free to do taht of coruse, but it shows the beginning of his jump from diacritics to dashes), advocated what amounts to WP:OWNership of articles to prevent "outsiders" (i.e. MOS, or really anyone but fans of hyphens) from having any input on hyphens/dashes in article titles. Note: LittleBenW's editing, since his MOS-related topic ban on diacritics debating, has actually been largely constructive and positive. I want to reiterate that I do not support a block in his case. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 10:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not following these editors around, and have only looked at a few page histories. Both of these users have been clearly, unmistakably engaged in a pattern of miring every forum they can raise their pet "issues" in simultaneously, in pointless circular argumentation, using WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and trolling techniques, which have escalated to the level of WP:TAGTEAM efforts at organized WP:Griefing of MOS and AT, in a WP:GREATWRONGS-style campaign about a matter of typographic trivia. LittleBenW's entry to this particular dash debate is late, but fits his diacritics pattern of histrionics. Enough is enough. Both of these editors have also made valuable contributions to Misplaced Pages, and surely can continue to do so if they stay out of style disputes they cannot refrain from campaigning about and do not fully understand anyway. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 12:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Updated with evidenciary links, clarifications, etc., 14:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. These users have previously been defending both views and actions of Dolovis and GoodDay in the diacritics debate. They may be entitled to do that, but one can't help thinking that they are taking Apteva's side just because they've been there before. It's hard to imagine such a commitment by three editors on an issue such as hyphens and endashes based on reason. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

  Comment: It's not based on reason; it's an organized griefing campaign. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 12:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• You are talking pure BS, gross exaggeration, and lies, as usual. As I have said repeatedly, I couldn't care less about hyphens vs. dashes, but I do think that Misplaced Pages would be a very much better place without your WikiBullying. Apteva has always been courteous and helpful to other users, in my experience, which is a big contrast to your loud and abusive behavior. Wikid77 also seems to be pretty reasonable, trying to reach a fair compromise that doesn't involve bullying and blocking. LittleBen (talk) 12:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

  Compare this to User talk:LittleBenW#Notice of Administrator's noticeboard of incidents discussion (2): "You are talking rubbish. I have not been edit warring about diacritics, that's a blatant lie. LittleBen (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)", shortly after which you were blocked and topic banned for edit warring about diacritics. Your knee-jerk response to any criticism seems to amount to "You are talking ; you are lying". For all I know you have some kind of script that posts these repetitive responses for you. This isn't about Apteva any more, it's about you. Wikid77 can speak for himself. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 14:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

  Comment: quote from WikiBullying: "Stating a real policy when it is necessary is not considered WikiBullying". You have repeatedly accused others of bullying, intimidation, threats and lynching. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is, and report all those you've accused to WP:AN/I, like WP:WikiBullying says? I guess maybe you don't follow that guidelines/piece of advice either. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• It's not just WikiBullying, it's also unreasonable criticism and screwing up other peoples' good work without any rational discussion. LittleBen (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• So, what are you waiting for? HandsomeFella (talk) 13:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Waiting for him to self destruct. He's not worth wasting time on, he's surely incurable. Surely some people will never learn that Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a friendly, civil, and welcoming community until all the enthusiastic people with specialist knowledge, and all the good editors, have left. LittleBen (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Editors who demonstrate those traits don't get blocked repeatedly and topic-banned. There is nothing "friendly" about a deluge of forum-shopped putsches against punctuation you have an obsessive loathing for, a campaign you once already refused to back down from until AN/I made you do so. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 14:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• I kind of knew that you wouldn't follow through. It's just hot air from your side, or possible not even that. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• I would like to be able to say that LittleBenW filing his own RFC/U or AN/I, accusing me and whoever else of "wikibullying" and whatnot, would be instructive for him, because it would fail and and he would learn something about how WP works and what its policies mean, but he's shown near-zero ability to learn from failed campaigning attempts, so why would that be any different? — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 14:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support for LittleBenW both; having already been the subject of a topic-ban on diacritics LittleBenW has simply moved his tendentious editing to another forum. Like the OP, I would actually suggest that this persistent pattern of behaviour deserves a block, not a topic-ban, or else I'm sure we'll find ourselves back here again. I would like to see more evidence before supporting for Wikid77The links below are plenty, especially the single one provided by John. Black Kite (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

More evidence: I've added it. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 14:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

No block: I do not support a block or a sweeping community ban for either editor, only a topic-ban, though a broadly-construed one about MOS/AT tendentiousness generally. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 11:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• As I have said repeatedly, I couldn't care less about hyphens vs. dashes. But I think that other editors deserve to be treated civilly. LittleBen (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• So why did you recently post a call for an out-of-process RFC that would prohibit anyone, like regular MOS editors and any editors who follow MOS (i.e. almost everyone), from participating, and allow participation only from people who, due to their inclination to do whatever the IAU says, automatically oppose dashes in favor of hyphens? That's an extremely partisan position to take on a punctuation matter, exactly like the radical anti-diacritics campaigning that got you blocked and topic-banned; any attempt to actually implement such a bogus poll would be insanely WP:POINTy. You clearly just need to stay out of styles issues that you don't understand, and stay out of them entirely until you understand WP policy better; virtually every time you cite a policy or guideline you do so incorrectly, but never, ever listen when this is clearly demonstrated to you. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 14:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think it's productive for a lot of editors who are totally uninvolved in an issue (like foreign language article issues, or geeky subjects with different language usage rules) to canvass a lot of their cronies in order to bully editors who have considerable subject knowledge and/or have been directly involved with an article or topic area for a long time. People who understand vocabulary and usage in a subject area should be consulted, rather than changes being arbitrarily imposed. LittleBen (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You keep "Easter-egg" linking to User talk:Montanabw#Unreasonably criticism as if you think there's some kind of "smoking gun" dispute between me and that editor that makes me look bad. You have negelected to do your homework by simply reading the related threads at my own talk page and the relevant wikiproject, which show that there is no extant dispute, and instead collaboration on how to approach WP:AT with a clarification, and how to clarify questions of "breed" definition and notability elsewhere. "Oops." — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 11:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Surely the threats on my talk page were posted before there was any mention of me here. LittleBen (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Calling a WP:AN notification a "threat" is only part of LittleBen's victim lore. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• In point of fact, I had already mentioned him several times, along with some other involved editors in Apteva's tag-teaming, in the now-hatted discussion above when I left that notice. I am required to leave such a notice; see top of this page. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 10:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support extending topic ban to both after reading this comment. --John (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I was rereading this and this and recalling that Wikid77 has previously been involved in pretty problematic editing in a narrow area and then improved after being topic-banned from that area. Does that mean we should feel easier about using a similar approach here? Or does it mean we should start to think about a site-ban? --John (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I think a site ban would be highly inappropriate. If a topic ban worked, why would a site ban be considered? Anyhow, I can't see anything so incredibly awful on Wikid77's part that would merit a full ban. dci | TALK 22:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Topic-ban is fine. I'm trying to resolve an actual issue of disruptive editing patterns and tendentiousness here, not "punish" people. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 10:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Wait – I think this discussion represents fair warning to Wikid77, and he can see the clear evidence of the community's reaction to Apteva-style disruption, so if such behavior continues, a ban or block will be in order. But he has not been through the process of warnings and attempts to resolve the dispute that Apteva had been through, and his obnoxious anti-consensus activities so far would not on their own rise close to the level of a community restriction (if experience with what it took to throttle Apteva is any indication). Yes, I agree he has added fuel to the fire, but it's not his fire. Let's wait and see if things settle down now that Apteva is banned from such activities. If not, we'll be back here soon, but I don't see why he would put us through that. Dicklyon (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • He has been through the warning process, more than once, and even topic-banned before. See his talk page. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 10:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support enough is enough and they're adding to the disruption. --Rschen7754 18:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, beneficial to the encyclopedia with no detriment to the encyclopedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Blocking, banning, restricting editors in anyway, isn't the answer & it's not enviroment friendly, which is what Misplaced Pages should be. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • In cases of disruption, the community has two choices: be "friendly" and permit the disruption to continue, or (after discussions fail) topic ban those causing disruption. Misplaced Pages will survive even if totally incorrect horizontal lines are used, however, the community may not survive another decade of bickering repeatedly over the same points over and over again without respite. Even in this discussion, they are continuing to fight the good fight. Johnuniq (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• I would suggest waiting, per Dicklyon. dci | TALK 22:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC) My new comments can be found below. dci | TALK 00:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I see proper notification of this discussion has been given on the respective talk pages, but I seem to remember that the first step of conflict resolution is to attempt to discuss the problem with the individual directly. I suppose this typically takes place on their talk page. Has this been done? —Neotarf (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I had a brief discussion with LittleBenW on his talk page in which I encouraged him to distance himself from the MoS drama. dci | TALK 22:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I've had discussions with Wikid77 about this issue in particular in multiple places, including his talk page, and with LittleBenW recently on diacritics warring, which he's migrating to dash warring from. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 10:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban of LittleBenW: The proposed topic ban against User:LittleBenW (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) by the heavily involved wp:MOS editor User:SMcCandlish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (author of essay wp:SSF) is completely premature, where there has not been sufficient talk-page dialog to address concerns in actions, with time to calmly evaluate responses from LittleBenW to reply to careful, polite questions, rather than as threats to keep quiet or else. After that, perhaps an RfC/U for LittleBenW would be the next step, in attempting a wp:dispute resolution. Also, any false claims of collusion between LittleBenW and myself (Wikid77) should be cause for alarm, because we have never even posted to each other's talk-pages (see: User_talk:LittleBenW..history), and I am not an involved editor in debating actions by LittleBenW. I am concerned that this rush to topic-ban LittleBenW about hyhens/dashes, after a prior topic ban about diacritical marks, will act as wp:Wikihounding against LittleBenW to silence opinions, rather than try calmer methods of dispute resolution. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:26/23:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • You call all criticism "wikihounding". Of course I'm heavily involved in MOS; that is not damning (and neither is writing an essay that precisely zero people have been able to refute, even in part). I wouldn't have noticed this disruptiveness if it didn't keep ending up at MOS and spinning out from there to VPP, article talk pages, AN, RFC/Us, etc., etc. (places I mostly don't read). LittleBenW was subject to a topic ban the entire point of which was to getting him to stop being disruptive about style issues. It was unfortunately very narrowly worded, so he's just used that fact as an excuse to game the system by simply switching to another style nitpick to be tendentious about. Raising this concern is not "premature", it's standard operating procedure when an prior topic ban seems to not be working. I apologize if I was not clear earlier. I've never suggested that you and LittleBenW have directly colluded on this, but rather linked to proof of you collaborating with Apteva on explicitly disruptive plans against MOS and for editing-warring incessantly about hyphenation. Separately, I've shown LittleBenW wading into the anti-dash nitpicking shitstorm, pretty much immediately after his block expired, supporting you and Apteva on two pages, and making anti-consensus proposals of out-of-process pseudo-RFCs that only permit dash-haters. I hope this is clearer. I think everyone else already understood this. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 11:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I'm close to supporting topic bans for both these: Apteva was maybe the general, but these two are as about as bent on the crusade as the former. I'd be happy for this to be seen as a "final warning" for Wikid77 and LittleBenW. -- Ohconfucius  01:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: it appears that several of these editors have, probably informally, formed some kind of pact to oppose any proposal to sanction the others, thereby hoping to stop the community from reaching a consensus on sanctions, and ensure their own ability to continue the disruptive editing. Just check which editors oppose. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support any sort of ban on Wikid77 for this sort of repetitive quibbling. No views (yet) on LittleBenW . Oculi (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose strongly. I might be able to support iff User:SMcCandlish is included in the ban, but this looks too much like a campaign against one side of an issue. --Nouniquenames 15:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

  It might look like it, but is it? I haven't seen evidence that would support a ban myself (granted I haven't looked very hard) so I am not supporting the ban, but this is a nonsense reason to oppose it. It is certainly conceivable that 3 editors on the same side of a content issue ought to be banned. "I might be able to support iff User:SMcCandlish is included in the ban"—whoa, that was from nowhere! Or did I miss it? Why would you support a ban of SMcCandlish?? HaugenErik (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not actually calling for his ban. In my opinion, though, he's gunning pretty hard for this, and the other two seem about as undeserving of a ban. If anything, it could be gaming to win a dispute. I'm against the ban. If the community decides one must be enacted, I want all of those gunning for the ban under the same terms. That includes (quite strongly) SMcCandlish. Especially if you read his essay (linked elsewhere here). --Nouniquenames 16:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - for the same reasons Nouniquenames is getting at. This feels too one sided. I'm always nervous about the possibility of using bans and blocks to win content disputes. I'd agree that the editors are clearly aligned in interest, and have been obnoxiously persistent, but some of this process towards banning is going too quickly. Shadowjams (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nouniquenames. Though I would not be hesitant to support either editor if they chose a voluntary respite from the MoS (and think that doing so would be beneficial), the pro-ban atmosphere is a bit thick with intensity. I would prefer a calmer, more "neutral" resolution to this dispute than "ban 'em all." However, I would oppose any serious attempt to topic-ban SMcCandlish. dci | TALK 00:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Shadowjams --My76Strat (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - agree with Shadowjams and My76Strat. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - behavior does not rise to level necessitating a ban. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Although past experience indicates a near-certainty that Wikid77 will take his unique style of argument-by-five-thousand-paragraphs-of-text-distributed-over-a-dozen-pages to a new and unexplored area of the project once he's topic-banned here, every little helps. No particular opinion on LittleBenW. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

A suggestion regarding the discussion immediately above

Instead of an immediate topic ban (which has drawn a few suggestions to wait a bit), why not try something else? Would it not be possible to impose some sort of "editing probation" on both Wikid77 and LittleBenW, during which neither would be the subject of either involuntary or voluntary sanctions. During this period (30 days?), their behavior could be monitored off and on to ensure that they are not engaging in tendentious or unhelpful actions regarding the MoS. If they do, a topic ban could be imposed; if not, things can be left alone. dci | TALK 23:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose behavior has gotten to the point where a topic ban is needed. --Rschen7754 23:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This really isn't a proposal, just a suggestion meant as an alternative in the case consensus favors warning the editors. I just wanted to put something forward so that a less "heavy" sanction could be applied, or so that the editors could have a way of relaxing behaviors which may have drawn criticism. dci | TALK 23:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

They need to chill out, starting now. —Neotarf (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I would be interested in exploring the concept of "binding voluntary restrictions" that was entertained briefly above. As pointed out in a discussion above (now hatted) there is some precedent for it here: Here is the close: I understand a block was later issued for violating the restriction.

There are some obvious advantages. The Project is less likely to have to waste time chasing down socks, as was seen recently with PMAnderson. The editor with the conflict has the opportunity to save face, and demonstrate a willingness to cooperate with the Project, also a firm motive to edit in a different area. This is particularly valuable in cases where the editor has done productive work before and truly believes they are doing something to benefit WP, however misguided. I would suggest that an agreement might also be entered into even after a formal restriction has been decided on, in addition to it.

—Neotarf (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I would actually be okay with this WP:ROPE approach. I am not on some kind of warpath against these two editors personally, I just want the disruption to stop. I don't want to see either of them blocked or broadly community banned, and would be happy with a simply topic ban, or your even milder approach. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 11:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely; the concept, in my mind, has roughly the same impact but has a more positive air than a sanction. Further exploration would be beneficial to dispute resolution, IMO. dci | TALK 01:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I would not support a proposal that may be seen to want to silence all who are ignorant about dashes, or are opposed to using them in this publication. However, let this be an official warning to anyone seeking to follow in the footsteps of Apteva to cease and desist in behaving in a similar manner, as such behaviour will not be tolerated. -- Ohconfucius  01:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It's never been about ignorance of or disagreement with dashes. It's about behavior patterns that make Misplaced Pages a miserable experience for every other editor who runs across this three- (formerly four-)way WP:TAGTEAM when they're obsessing over some bit of typographical trivia and forumshopping it to Hell and back. The underlying content dispute could have been about sea urchins or flag icons or whether Bill Clinton should move to William Jefferson Clinton or whatever; that part's irrelevant. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 11:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound foolish, but are you referring to the topic ban proposal or to exploring voluntary restrictions? dci | TALK 01:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I confess to feeling ambivalent about this. I think Apteva needed to be shut up, so the topic ban was appropriate and necessary. Hopefully, 'the other two' will see some sense and lie low, or otherwise they will have sense knocked into them. -- Ohconfucius  01:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

"Voluntary restrictions" draft

• Regarding voluntary restrictions - I have begun to develop a page in my userspace regarding the subject. It's at a very preliminary stage, and addresses the nature of a voluntary restriction and areas where one is best used. Anyone is welcome to comment or contribute. dci | TALK 03:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Um, I just boldly added this to the policy, since there don't seem to be any objections, and it is something that is already being used successfully. Might as well specifically allow it; maybe it will help someone else's conflict, and help with editor retention besides. If anyone wants to opine, discussion is here: WT:Banning policy#Binding voluntary restrictions. —Neotarf (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Evidently too bold, since it got reverted by two regulars here. That said, I'm tentatively okay with the idea being applied here, at least in LittleBenW's case. He's stated clearly that he has no interest in pursuing further disputatious editing about hyphenation. I remain considerably more skeptical about Wikid77, because of the four nonsensical anti-dash rants he recently posted to WT:AN]], but WP:ROPE is generally effective at rapidly demonstrated that a wayward editor really is ready to stop being disruptive or really is ready for stronger sanctions after all. I reiterate that I just want the tendentious disruption to stop (by which I inclusively mean "not just on this micro-issue about dashes, but all style-and-naming Misplaced Pages meta-issues"). If we can get there without any more formal sanctions, then huzzah. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 11:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Heh, without so much as one word of discussion. Forget good-cop, bad-cop; looks like this crowd will not be satisfied with anything less than a pound of flesh. —Neotarf (talk) 11:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Well, WP:BRD is almost always immediately applied to pages like this, and there's no policy that the reverter has to be the one to start the discussion. You should probably open a proposal thread at Misplaced Pages talk:Administrator's noticeboard about the material you're trying to add. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 13:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
          • At AN???!?
          • I did start a discussion on the talk page, as I indicated in the edit summary; courtesy has become an anachronism here. —Neotarf (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
            • Right, WT:AN, not WP:AN; you're trying to introduce changes to how WP:AN works, so they would need to be discussed on its talk page. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 18:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
              • Re: "I did start a discussion on the talk page" – I just looked at WT:AN and there's no such thread there. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 15:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• As far as I'm concerned this entire thread and its subthreads are dead now, including the proposal to extend the Apteva topic ban to Wikid77 and LittleBenW (there was a lot of support for it, but it wasn't unanimous, and the alternative – to simply have the fact that the proposal was seriously considered stand as a warning against further programs of style-related disruption from those two editors – is well-reasoned enough. The "enforcing voluntary restrictions" discussion belongs at WT:AN, not WP:AN. The only other semi-active subthread left really belongs on my talk page if the other editors wants to pursue it. Might as well close and hat the entire thing at this point. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 15:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban, what topic ban?

Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles, today Andy Dingley (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Modification of Alan Liefting's topic ban

Per Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive240#Topic ban for Alan Liefting, Alan Liefting is topic banned from making any category-related edits outside of mainspace. Having viewed the discussion, it appears that the crux of the problem was related to a) Alan Liefting making category-related edits to files and b) Alan Liefting making category-related edits to AfC pages. I would like to suggest that the topic ban be modified to only apply to files and AfC pages. We have no policy allowing categorization of templates and it doesn't appear that there has been a problem with Alan Liefting's edits to the category namespace. My apologies, I forgot to link to give the background to this situation. Alan Liefting was recently blocked for violating his topic ban. Necessary reading would include the discussion at User talk:Alan Liefting#Category-related edits, January 2013. Ryan Vesey 23:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I would further add that the vagueness of the current Topic ban has caused Alan to be blocked a couple times (all by the same admin) and a clarification and modification to this ban would greatly benefit the pedia. It would allow the user to continue to edit while being able to fix the minor category problems they run across without violating the ban and the basis for the ban. Kumioko (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The current topic ban is clear and simple, which is a great virtue for any sanction, I also have no confidence (given past edit history) that a relaxed ban, as suggested here, would still avoid Alan's problem use of categories overall.

That said, I don't support his resultant block (GF suggests a warning to please be more careful to avoid accidental overlap would be appropriate and adequate). I'm particularly concerned that all patrolling of his topic ban seems to be coming from one admin. Now that too must surely be coincidence, but it still doesn't look neutral. If Alan were to (and I hope he doesn't) breach this topic ban, then I'm sure it would be obvious and noticed soon enough to be handled by other admins – and if it was benign enough to not raise concerns, then there's no harm done and little point in pursuing blocks over it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy, I don't understand how a clear and simple topic ban is better than a topic ban that addresses the problematic areas and does not extend beyond it. Alan only violates policy in the areas I mentioned. Ryan Vesey 00:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I also don't see how clarifying and loosening the ban to allow some and still factor out those that the community determined to be troublesome. Kumioko (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

We rarely topic ban because of a breach of clear policy – if it's that cut-and-dried, then those are usually blocks. Bans arise where the community is being disrupted by persistent edits that don't clearly breach a policy (and we just don't have a policy against most of Alan's problem edits, we'd not previously needed one), but where these edits are going against (and repeatedly and disruptively) community consensus of "good practice". We base this on our policies against general disruption, but there's no simple policy to point to for the specific issue.

I see Alan's edits involving categorization to any namespace as having been part of this disruption. Not every edit, and some namespaces (e.g. file:) have been much more of a problem than others, but it's the categorization that's the common factor, not the namespace. On that basis, the topic ban should remain defined by categorization.Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you are trolling (the first time I have ever made such a judgement AFAIK). Perusal of my talk page and its archive will show that there is no basis in fact (as I have been repeatedly saying) for your accusations. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You do not appear to understand what trolling means, since Andy Dingley's post did not even come close. Please read Internet troll. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 14:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Additional reading: Alan appealed the topic ban on Nov 5, 2012 and Nov 28, 2012. The block that he is currently under is the first block since the Nov 28 appeal was closed on November 30 with the message "There is clearly consensus to ban Alan Liefting from further appeals for no less than six months. — Coren (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)". Here are the block notices I left when issuing the blocks under the topic ban: . I have attempted to discuss the matter, e.g. and other edits on that talk page. I would welcome any review of the blocks and topic ban. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I've not had a chance to read every word of the past appeals, but they both appear to be attempts for a full repeal of the topic ban. I was completely unaware of them when I made my request. This request also only involves a modification. Ryan Vesey 02:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I also think the topic ban is too broad. I think it should apply only to category-related edits in the file and user/user talk namespaces (not including his own userspace), and to articles within the AfC process. Alan has since acknowledged that he made edits which were disruptive and has apologised for them, and he says he has attempted to move away from that area. This is in the discussion on his talk page linked to by Ryan.-gadfium 01:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

User/User talk is probably a good extension since it applies to the same types of articles as AFC. Ryan Vesey 02:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

And as can be seen from my editing history I have completely steered clear of those edits. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic-ban reduction to only apply to files and AfC pages: I do not really see the need to restrict edits in categories of user/user-talk pages. If category edits still seem excessive, then I think discussion at User:Alan_Liefting would be sufficient to request fewer edits. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, with caveat. I've had problems with Liefting's mainspace categorization before, frankly (as did many others - his talk page for a while was flooded with "STOP!" messages), but he seems more clueful now. The extant topic ban is clearly overbroad, thwarting Liefting's ability to work on the encyclopedia in legitimate ways that interest him, and resulting in unjust blocks. For those who feel that he's simply a problem editor and will remain one, see WP:ROPE. Because Liefting has previously engaged in blatant WP:FAITACCOMPLI action, I would support only after the mainspace-categories-in-templates issue reported below is resolved, so that Liefting has a consensus in place to follow, instead of a lack of consensus to sway in favor of his sometimes strange categorization notices by going on a recategorization AWB run or whatever. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 14:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Complicating matters in regards to templates

I apologize for complicating matters, but it's a complicated issue. Under my proposal above, Alan Liefting would be allowed to make category related edits in the template namespace. There is currently nothing in policy, that I have found, allowing mainspace categories to be used on templates (we have special categories for navboxes, infoboxes, etc.) That being said, given the fact that Alan's edits to templates have been (wrongly) used to support his ban, I think it is clear that a discussion on categorization of templates needs to take place. Given that, and under the assumption that support is attained for my suggested modification to Alan's topic ban, how should we treat Alan's ability to edit categories on templates? My suggestion is to not allow edits to mainspace categories on templates that are meant to be used in the mainspace until the discussion is closed, at which point Alan will be expected to comply with whatever the consensus ends up being. Ryan Vesey 03:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This actually seems a lot like the leed up to the topic ban. There is no policy that allows it, and no policy that prohibits it. Some editors don't see a problem with it, and object to the removal of the categories. In the file categories case, we then had an RFC that soundly rejected a policy that would have supported the removals. Alan then continued removals after the RFC. I'm not really sure what is going to be different this time around. I have no doubt that Alan means well, but the topic ban really is necessary. All it would take for me to support lifting the topic ban would be for Alan to acknowledge the root of the problem and pledge not to continue courses of category edits in the face of objections, especially when there is no clear policy or guideline backing him up. If there was a proposal allow him to participate in category related discussion while still banning him from direct edits, I would probably support that as well. Monty₈₄₅ 05:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about that since it appears that WP:Categorization allowed for categorization of files long before the issue began. As for templates, WP:Categorization is what allows categories to appear on pages, it does not allow categories to appear on templates, as a result, templates cannot have categories (mainspace ones that is). Ryan Vesey 10:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The original problems were with the files (and some templates) and the userspace drafts. The first is a contentious, and difficult, field, the second are edits that 'have to be done', but there are several ways of doing them (removal by outright clear-cut removal, commenting them out, or colon-ising them - and it depends on which you deem the best and the least bitey to a new editor). However, the topic ban is covering all fields of categorisation, and enforced even though hardly ANY of the edits that have resulted are reverted, removed, undone, whatever - the edits stand, for months, but the editor who performs them is blocked because of an edit restriction which is too broadly worded.

I would support to restrict the edit restriction to 'mainspace categorisation of pages in the files, templates and categories namespace' (he can still suggest them to/discuss them on e.g. the categorisation WikiProject for others to solve, but no addition or removal or recategorisation of files, templates and categories when it involves mainspace categories), and that for the categorisation of userspace drafts (including articles for creation) Alan has to perform the following: 'colonisation of the categories on those pages, followed within 10 minutes with a note on the talkpage of the creator of the draft article' (or leave them alone and suggest them to others). I would also ask for the removal of the restriction on Alan that disallows Alan to discuss the lifting of the restriction on AN, which was implemented because he asked for it for the second time (sigh, that is akin blocking talkpage access of a blocked editor as soon as the editor asks for the second time to lift his block). --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra on public computers) 05:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

As the blocking admin, I have reviewed his category-related edits, and I can say the edits he has made to violate the current ban were recategorization of templates and categories (mostly removing categories, e.g. ). I think he has not been editing userspace drafts recently. If the goal of changing the restriction is to affect the current block, it would need to allow him to edit such pages. However, removing categories from templates was one of the things that was discussed before the topic ban was implemented, and I think the inclusion of templates was intentional. I have interpreted the current ban as allowing Alan to post cleanup messages such as , which should be sufficient. However, one problematic aspect of his editing is that he sometimes has posted the note, only to later remove the categories himself, e.g. . I think the reason few of his edits are reverted is the same reason the cleanup tags are not promptly answered: few people watchlist templates and categories. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Or the reason is that the edits are simply fine. But that does not matter anyway. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra on public computers) 14:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Carl, Dirk Beetstra is correct here. The reason that few of his edits are reverted is not because people don't see them. If that was the case, he would never be blocked. You chose to block him, which was in line with the technical bounds allowed to you by the editing restriction, while endorsing his edits by default. Ryan Vesey 17:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but let's all stop beating on Carl. Alan broke the rules of the community-endorsed topic ban several times, on several separate occasions. There's no point in a community-endorsed topic ban if it's not enforced. Sure, as I've said on Alan's talkpage, Carl might have given Alan a warning, but in all honesty, we should credit Alan with more intelligence, he knows the bounds of the topic ban, there's thousands of edits he can make without infringing it. Please stop pretending Alan is the victim here, Carl is technically right to do what he's done. Having said that, if 0.2% of my edits were called out as being bad and I was blocked for a month, I'd be upset, but then again, I would work hard to avoid that situation. Can we just focus on the idea that the topic ban phrasing could be updated to include a single warning should Alan transgress once again, and have a duration, e.g. three months? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ryan seems so keen to whitewash Alan that he's now blanking any criticism of him on other projects as "removing unrelated crap" and edit-warring to re-blank it when it's restored. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• That's completely unrelated and your idea that I'm "whitewashing" Alan is wrong. Ottawahitech made an inappropriate edit in an improper venue. Editors have a responsibility to remove crap like that. Ryan Vesey 17:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Alan Liefting is a clear deletionist and a regular at AfD. To hear him discuss editor retention with the comment, "We should also keep editor attrition in the back of our minds when !voting on deletion discussions." is thus a little surprising, at least when it's coming from him. Not surprisingly, Ottawahitech then challenged him over this and noted some of Alan's past actions that were rather at variance with his words here. Ottawahitech's comments were very far from complimentary and might have been phrased more modestly, given the fluffy kid gloves we're all supposed to wear whilst typing, but one thing they certainly weren't was "unrelated". Andy Dingley (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Just a question, is this actually related the topic ban we're discussing across most of Misplaced Pages, or is it a different matter that needs to be dealt with locally/elsewhere? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• It's unrelated. Ryan Vesey 20:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• When Ryan is trying to instigate presenting Alan as the innocent victim of an unwarranted topic ban, whilst simultaneously blanking other's well-founded criticisms of him, then it's related. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed with Andy Dingley on all his points in this section. (And note that I support partial relaxation of Liefting's topic-ban; they're severable concerns.) — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 14:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

For the record, Alan Liefting commented on User talk:Alan Liefting#A few replies for the AN discussion, and the blocking admin agreed that it would be ok to add his comments to this discussion. Per Alan's request I've simply added the link instead. Huon (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Andy, your position on the quality of my edits is all over the place. You have contradicted yourself on my talk page about these supposed "well-founded criticisms". Now are you sure that your comments are not clouded by the fact that we have not seen eye to eye in past discussions? You seem to be clutching at straws to make sure that I am penalised. BTW, another editor has endorsed Ryan's edit. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem with this type of discussion

I am going to create this as a subsection of this because it deals with this case but it is also a wider problem. I have and always have had a major problem with ANI cases and discussions like this against users who are blocked and cannot even comment to defend themsleves or make a statement. THIS IS WRONG! It was wrong before it happened to me, it was wrong when it happened to me and its wrong now and this is the sort of conduct and dirty tactics that is frequently used on here to get peoples way. The user requested an unblock to comment here and it was denied. Ok fnie, several editors volunteered to copy the users comments here, ok fine. But now instead of the user getting a voice in this a link to his talk page was left so now, in order to get to it the reader has to wade through a whole nother discussion. Virtually no one is going to do that. We all have lives and nbetter things to do. If we are going to participate in a discussion about a user like this, then that user should be able to have a voice. That is my opinion and you may not agree but I know how frustrating and how pissed I was and still am about it. I see it too often and I finally decided its time to say something about it so at least its on record. If the user is being discussed then they need to have access to the discussion; If we are unwilling to unblock him then this conversation needs to move to the users talk page with a link here to it. This block, discuss, exclude bullshit is not a civil or mature way to handle these types of problems. Kumioko (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I feel that he should have been unblocked just to take part in this. I've seen it happen before. I'll ping a neutral admin. Ryan Vesey 18:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm that neutral admin, and I am in fact neutral. I'll have a look. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I have unblocked Alan so he can participate in this discussion. See the conditions I set on his talk page, and please be advised that I am well aware that my blocks and unblocks are always subject to community approval. I trust that Alan will not abuse this limited freedom. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That at least fixes things for this case. I still stand by the statement above that it happens all too often and all too often people turn their backs too it. Kumioko (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a systemic problem with administration of WP by our administrators both individually or collectively. I don't have any animosity to the admins involved in this discussion so my comment is not a case of sour grapes (having said that I do wish Carl would turn a blind eye to my uncontroversial edits relating to the topic ban.) Time and again there has been complaints about the behaviour of admins. Admins should have exemplary behaviour, mind you so should all other editors! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Alan, you realise that comment actually has no content at all, right? You think there's a "systemic problem" but go on to explain that admins/non-admins are all the same and should all behave in the same way. Do you have a point, or is it one of those Merlot mornings? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Waddaya mean by no content? I put forward an opinion. An opinion is content. My point is that it is good that the whole RfA process is tightened up so only the good ones get through but there are some admins who have atrocious behaviour and I think it is hard to control or get rid of them. Admins control the common rabble so they should be on their best behaviour. To set the example and all that. BTW, I only drink Merlot in the evenings. Probably your mornings. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Rambling Man is correct; that was totally content-free in any meaningful sense. Alan, your verbiage was just noise, in the information theory sense, since the logic was so faulty that half of what you said cancelled the other half out. You're not parsing "content" correctly, just as you didn't understand "trolling" properly earlier. I strongly suggest that you stop trying to get into nit-picking arguments here. You were unblocked to make a case for a change to your topic-ban, not to engage in petty bickering over and act defensively and haughtily in response to criticism. Further behavior of that sort is highly likely to convince me to rescind my support of a relaxation of your topic ban. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 14:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Request administrator to review and close AN/I thread on user Darkstar1st involving topic bans

Requesting administrator to close thread. There is a dead tie in the views of users on the idea of a topic ban on political topics for Darkstar1st, there are currently 7 users in favour of such topic bans, and 7 users opposed to such topic bans, as I write this. I would appreciate it if the administrator would make a ruling on the matter of whether topic bans should be applied, or whether they should not. The discussion is here: --R-41 (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I have actually counted eleven twelve editors who have explicitly supported a topic ban, either on the AN/I or in the RfC/U: RolandR, R-41, TFD, Orange Mike, The Hand That Feeds You, FurrySings, Snowded, Ravenswing, Saddhiyama, Dave Dial, SMcCandish, Assistant N.RolandR (talk) 11:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that the thread is closed and that the RFC/U cannot impose any such ban. --Nouniquenames 06:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Burden of Proof

Forgive me if this is not the appropriate forum to ask such questions, but I couldn't find the appropriate place. I'm currently in a dispute with some other contributors. They have made a controversial edit, and have not provided any citation to back up their edit. I believe the edit needs to be removed until they cite their sources and a consensus is reached on the talk page. They seem to believe that I must prove my case, and until I do the edit should remain. Who has the burden of proof? Can I remove the edit, even violate the 3 revert rule if necessary, until they make their case on the talk page?--115.94.64.219 (talk) 08:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You can see 3RR exemptions; this is not among them. Generally, the proof is on those adding content, but that doesn't mean that you can remove it over consensus. If the material clearly doesn't belong, but (especially) multiple editors are restoring it, you can add a tag to note that it is disputed and start dispute resolution processes on the talk page or the relevant noticeboards. If the material is inappropriate, consensus of a couple of editors is not likely to outweigh policy requirements for verifiability once the broader community is involved. --Moonriddengirl 11:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as an IP has been making identical edits to identical sets of articles, and is currently blocked before 115 popped up here, I think there's already ample evidence of edit warring. If the IPs are in fact the same person, I suggest that you cool it. These are almost meaningless edits... you're edit warring over whether "Narcissism" is a category of Individualism and vis versa. I don't see any evidence of actual discussion, just a claim in the comments that "the issue's being debated." This is not how we deal with contentious edits. Honestly, it might be good if an admin took a look at the edit warring history there, because maybe some more action is required. Shadowjams (talk) 10:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Also see this previous ANI. Shadowjams (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I am the same person as 115.94.64.219. I am not IP hopping. Life just forces me to make use of more than one computer and network. I am trying desperately to move this conversation to the talk page. I will remove the link again, because it is controversial and has not been properly cited according to WP:IRS. Cite your sources and discuss it with me on the talk page and we won't have an problems.--118.36.229.221 (talk) 11:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, this crap again? The discussion stalled out. Though I agree with the IP editor regarding the category, edit-warring is not the answer. It's not something that needs removed immediately, and that means using the dispute resolution process, not unilaterally and repeatedly removing it. — The Hand That Feeds You: 15:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The IP hasn't made any attempt at discussion on Talk:Individualism or Talk:Narcissism since the December 29-31 conversations (except for this comment which they then removed ). They have opened a dispute resolution request, but it only includes three editors including me. My involvement in this is limited solely to the edit warring issue. I don't care which way the merits go, and had no part in those discussions. However, my reading of the previous discussion suggests nowhere near any consensus to remove this. The IP is pushing an esoteric reading of including a category.

One of the IPs (same individual, working from 2 IPs, as they acknowledged) was blocked for rather egregious edit warring. With that block in place (14:19 1/6 – 21:19 1/7), the other IP continued the same edits , , and also after the block expired , , (however most recent edits by IP were reverted within an hour or so by the IP).

During all of this the IP has filed a DR/N, posted this to AN, been the subject of another ANI thread, and been blocked. All this for a simple category inclusion that up until this point, nobody seemed to find the least objectionable. Strikes me as similar to the issues raised in another recent of editors misunderstanding verifiability—Uncle G explains that best here. The IP needs to get an actual consensus, and if it doesn't go the way they want, then to respect it. But this level of disruption, even if in good faith, needs to stop. Shadowjams (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe one should have to get consensus to remove material that is in violation of Misplaced Pages policy. This is the root of the problem which no one seems to want to address definitively. If controversial material is not properly cited, thus in violation of WP:IRS, shouldn't it be removed until sources are cited and concensus for adding it is reached? e.g The burden of proof is on those who wish to add the material. Getting a definitive answer to this question woul resolve the dispute. User:Moonriddengirl's answer was a little wishywashy, but did at least attempt to answer the fundamental question.--118.36.229.221 (talk) 12:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Just an update from the DR side. I'm a regular volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. The IP did file a DRN request, but the other editor involved in this Penbat is not responding to the notice of the filing left on his talk page. There's not much we can do in DR when one of the disputants chooses not to participate. Unless he/she decides to engage, the request will probably be closed in the next day or two. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC) PS @118.36.229.221: In response to the your question just above, "If controversial material is not properly cited, thus in violation of WP:IRS, shouldn't it be removed until sources are cited and concensus for adding it is reached?" Here's the definitive answer: There is considerable debate at the present time over just that point. (Most of the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability is about it, in one form or another.) But there is no suggestion or discussion that removal of uncited material, controversial or not (except for BLP material, which is a different subject) should be a 3RR or edit warring exception. If a controversy arises over the removal or retention of unsourced information, the ordinary consensus-building process and the standards set out in the Consensus policy still apply (and you might note in particular the No consensus subsection of that policy). You should feel free to join in that debate and propose or argue for such an exception (but no amount of discussion here or at the talk page of the articles in question can change the current policy, due to the WP:CONLIMITED policy). — TM 15:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Blacklists and assholes

After having seen this on WP:NPP and this on WP:AfC, I was surprised that a new user could create pages with the word "asshole" in them. Aside from perhaps a work by Frank Zappa that I missed, I can't think of a single valid reason to create an article using this word. (And I got Elvis' Greatest Shit created, so I'm not averse to bad language when in an appropriate context). --Ritchie333 10:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't think there's a single notable work with the word "asshole" in it? It took me less than twenty seconds to come up with five. IPs and other casual editors add the vast majority of our content, and every barrier that's put in their way hurts us. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you've misinterpreted what I've said. You probably thought I meant I couldn't search for existing articles with "asshole" in the title, as opposed to not thinking of any ideas of new articles. I also said I had created an article on a notable subject with an expletive in it myself, going via this very board to do it, so that's not really the issue - more that creating an article with this title is so infrequent that it would be a net benefit to add "asshole" to the blacklist alongside "shit". --Ritchie333 15:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You missed the point. If several such articles, mostly about notable published works already exist, and "asshole" is not an obsolete word like "hungred", then logically it's a near certainty that more notable works will use this word in their titles in the future, probably the very near future. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 14:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Would the edit filter block the creation of AFC pages? I just created Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/shit shit shit shit shit shit shit shit shit shit with my non-admin alternate account (containing nothing but a deletion tag and "Page created to test the title blacklist."), and to my surprise it went through quite fine. I was planning to comment on the wording of the message presented when the blacklist prevents the creation of a title, but I'm not sure how to do that without disrupting mainspace. Nyttend backup (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The warning depends on the regex that the page gets blocked under. (By the way, do note that the edit filter and the title blacklist are two totally different things.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I knew that, but obviously I wasn't paying attention. I was only attempting to trigger the title blacklist. Nyttend backup (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You should be able to find most of the messages here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

See also this AfD. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

And, for completeness, this thread is when I noted I couldn't create an article with "shit" in it, about a fortnight after that AfD. --Ritchie333 16:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the messages. The text of MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-forbidden-edit almost seems to presume that a false positive has happened and provides full instructions for creating a needed page. I don't understand Chris' last clause. Nyttend (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised Asshole from El Paso doesn't have an article. I might just write this one, if only to try to get it pushed through WP:DYK and on the main page. _{(muahahahahahaha)} caknuck _° needs to be running more often 07:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've made a change that should probably resolve this issue. Before this change, the title blacklist would have rejected names that included "is an asshole". I've changed it so that it also rejects phrases like "are assholes". ‑Scottywong| confer _ 19:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Babak Khorramdin and Babak (given name)

hi everyone. i and User:Boboszky have an arguments for babak name. we know that babak is arabicised from middle persian name papak. but our sources doesn`t Explicitly say equivalence of babak in arabic and papak in middle persian. his edits is Distortion of academic sources but he does`nt agree. at last, we need an Administrator to judge between us. --Espiral (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• This looks a content dispute, in which case there several avenues you can follow first, such as seeking a third opinion, or going to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Once there, hopefully your issue will be resolved. --Ritchie333 11:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for removal of adminship process

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for removal of adminship

A Request for Comment on a proposal to create a new process to allow for removal of adminship through community discussion. I welcome everyone's thoughts on this. - jc37 16:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for a new user-right group

• Misplaced Pages:Moderators/Proposal

A Request for Comment on a proposal to create a new user group with an abbreviated set of administrator user-rights, as an option for administrators to request instead of requesting removal of the entire sysop user-right package. I welcome everyone's thoughts on this. - jc37 16:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Jingles

Mr. Jingles is a (mouse) character brought back to life by a character in The Green Mile (film). Mr. Jingles is also the name of a 2006 horror film. The page is currently disambiguated. Do we really create redirects for this? If so, what's the litmus? I'm ready to create the article for the film and don't want to remove a redirect without knowing how to do it properly. Ideas? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd say creating an article at Mr. Jingles for the film of that name is fine, as long as you include a hatnote pointing to The Green Mile. GiantSnowman 16:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Am I missing an intenet meme or something? Is Mr. Jingles the mouse really that worthy of note? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

He's a character in a film and a likely search term. 'Mr. Jingles green mile' gets over 33k ghits. What harm does a hatnote do? GiantSnowman 17:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The mouse is more than just a character in the film, it's a major plot point. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"Major" is an overstatement. The event is important, not the mouse itself. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Write the article, point the current redir at it, add a hatnote. Why is this on AN? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

... because the OP seeks enlightenment and AN is known to be a fount of wisdom and sage advice?  :-) — Coren  14:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI: Seeking feedback on CentralNotice proposal

Just a pointer (to keep conversation in one place): I'm looking for feedback on a proposal for a central notice on January 14th and 15th (day 1 is a Wikimedia Shop sale for logged in users and day 2, Misplaced Pages Day, is a geolocated test for anonymous users to see interest in the shop to fund the giveaways. Current discussion is on Village pump.Jalexander--WMF 22:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Closing a discussion on this page

I would suggest an admin close the "Admin attention to an RfC/U" section; it has grown extremely long and hasn't been excessively active today or for a significant chunk of yesterday. The only remaining issue, whether or not to topic-ban two additional editors, probably won't attain enough consensus to either pass or be prevented; this discussion could be restarted at the bottom of the noticeboard, to enable more participation. dci | TALK 00:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The other remaining issue is enforceable voluntary topic bans; I'm not sure if this is the right venue, but someone suggested I post about it here. One of the reasons given for rejecting a voluntary withdrawal from the topic in that RFC/U is they did not view it as being enforceable, however there is a precedent for enforcing such a ban. —Neotarf (talk) 04:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that the issue is getting any traction. It looks to me like everyone who cared about that entire thread and its subthreads, like enforceability of voluntary topic bans, has already moved on. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 14:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Page Vandilisem/abuse

Hello,

I was looking around and I saw that the S.E. Hinton wiki page has some abuse to it like on guy who said right on the page "Screw U Little Kids I will Kill U all Nd Bary U In The Ociean >>>>>>>Ford Coppola]]"... Please fix this!

Thanks, aimmmmmmmmm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.8.142.202 (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Reverted and deleted, IP vandal blocked. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Acroterion (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Important RFC at WT:TITLE

Admins may be interested in this RFC at Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles, to confirm the roles of WP:TITLE and MOS in determining article titles. The question affects the smooth running of many discussions on Misplaced Pages, including the the application of policy and style guidelines at RM discussions. The more participation, the better. Admins' attention to the orderly conduct of the RFC would also be appreciated.

Noetica 07:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not important. We're an encyclopedia, users just want to find out why Mexico and the USA went at it in the 1800s and they really don't care what symbol gets stuck between Mexican and American. There's nothing wrong with trying to standardize Misplaced Pages layout but when such efforts lead to interminable conflict and disruption (see above) it's time to take a step back and chill out. It doesn't really matter whether six is the article and half-dozen the redirect or vice-versa. NE Ent 15:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

CAT:RFU overflowing

There are more currently active unblock requests than I think I've ever seen at one time. I'm going to work on handling some of these now, but I'd appreciate help. In order to clear out the backlog, if it looks like a request has been waiting on a response from the blocked user for some time, "decline" the request, asking them to throw up a new template with their response so we know when to check back. Hersfold 19:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I was surprised by the number as well, however if you go through them one by one many are in the process of being handled as there are admins and other helpful people discussing policy and such with the blocked editor. --Jezebel'sPonyo 19:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Would there be value in adding a "reviewing" option (or expanding use of the "on hold" option) to take these out of the general category? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That might be worthwhile if the admin who left comments remembers to check back; I'm always worried with the "on hold" thing that requests are just being sent into a purgatory of sorts where they never get reviewed. And as I and Ponyo mentioned above, many of these are cases where an administrator has replied, but the blocked user has been silent for days or weeks. We need some way to know when they've responded. Hersfold 19:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I am by no means an expert on the matter, but would it be possible or practical to set up a "watchlist" that listed Talk pages with ongoing unblock requests so that it could be determined who last commented and how recently? Just a thought. Doniago (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone would need to set up a bot, similar to what they have over at WP:BRFA, to keep track of that information; there's no way to track that information simply using what Mediawiki provides. There is (was?) a bot operating in the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-unblock that would notify members when a new request was posted, but I'm not sure if it's still working. Hersfold 20:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Bots are even more beyond my realm of expertise than blocking/unblocking (not an admin), but if people feel it would be useful and there's nobody better suited to the idea in a position to put theory into practice, I might be able to see if I can put something together. It seems like it might be useful in the current situation, but, as I said, I'm a bit out of my depth here. Doniago (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

If an IRC bot that provides an RC feed of the talk pages of users that have filed unblock requests is wanted, I can easily put together an IRC bot to do that. Legoktm (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking that something onwiki, like the DRN status template, might be better. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Perhaps subcats of CAT:RFU to classify by status might help? Salvidrim! ✉ 21:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I might be able to have Snotbot periodically update a page somewhere with some information about current unblock requests, how long ago they were made, and who has responded to them, etc. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 23:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

See if this works: User:Snotbot/Requests for unblock report. It's quite new so it's probably buggy. I'll let it run for a few days and then maybe transclude it to CAT:RFU once it's stable. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 01:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that the {{Time ago}} template doesn't sort correctly in sortable tables. That sucks. I'm off now but I'll try to fix that in the next day or two. Cheers. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 01:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a pretty skookum report...--Jezebel'sPonyo 01:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was thinking of; thanks, Scotty! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice report; thanks for the help, Scotty. I've handled two requests, but one of them, Dreamtheend, leads me to ask a technical question — because {{uw-spamublock}} includes Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for promotional user names, it's easy for an unblocked user to appear in the category. Is there a bot that goes around to remove this category from talk pages of users who are no longer blocked, or does it just stay there until/unless someone removes it manually? Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like User:AvicBot (BRFA) does this. Legoktm (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Bureaucratic missing the point of Hersfold post. Admins, just fish or cut bait. If you think a unblock request is sincere, unblock the user, if not reject it and provide a nice civil explanation of what the user needs to do. None of this claiming ownership of a discussion and please don't unblock without consulting me stuff, and creating new lists and new bots etc. etc. Unblocks just have to been reasonable, not perfect -- if an unblocked user resumes disruption that's on them, not the unblocking admin. Good faith is a code of conduct, not a probability assessment. Likewise if an admin denies an unblock, as long as the decline wording is civil and supportive, the user can simply post another unblock request.

We probably ought to change the rules for username blocks -- why not just leave the invalid account name blocked and tell the user just to start editing under a new account name? NE Ent 15:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with the table and the bot to update it? If nothing else, it helps us to see which requests are the oldest and should be resolved first. Nyttend (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, denied requests can be frustrating for a user who is probably already frustrated because he's been blocked. Sometimes it is easier on everyone if you talk it through with a user to ensure they understand, rather than just dropping by and denying their request without discussion. The "fish or cut bait" attitude is not really the best way to minimize the frustration of the user. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 17:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hence "Likewise if an admin denies an unblock, as long as the decline wording is civil and supportive, the user can simply post another unblock request." Of course a blocked user is frustrated -- what makes you think a long draw out back and forth is less frustrating than just answering the darn question. This all just adds move moving parts to break e.g. when archiving here broke because of a busted disk on a toolserver machine . NE Ent 17:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree to disagree. ‑Scottywong| express _ 17:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

NE Ent - No admin should be faulted for asking additional questions while reviewing an unblock request if they believe it would be helpful in evaluating the veracity of the blocked editor's appeal and to ensure the editor understands what lead to the block in order to avoid the same pitfalls in the future. --Jezebel'sPonyo 17:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course they can; I just did. If admin "A" is making unblock request "X" hangfire, then the rest of the admin community has more stuff to wade through to figure out that it's already being handled which consumes their wikitime making it more unlikely they'll have time to get to requests "Y" and "Z" that requires action. If the system was working well Hersfold wouldn't have started the thread, which is prima facie evidence the system isn't working well. Option A is complicated stuff relying on external servers, newly written enhanced or developed script, and the continuing presence of folks to maintain it. Option B is simply having admins making a decison when they review a situation. NE Ent 18:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

NE Ent: I'm not sure why you have such a strong interest in this topic; I don't imagine that accepting/denying unblock requests is a task you take part in, and therefore you lack any experience in this process that could be used to back up your strong opinions. In any case, I've transcluded the table to the category page. The time/date-related columns sort correctly now. Let me know if you spot any problems. Thanks. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 21:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The deletion of the article concerning Christopher Tappin

Apologies as I don't know where to make such a request except but put it here. The aforementioned article needs to be deleted or moved because it violates all these issues WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:BLP1E, WP:WI1E and WP:EVENT. I recognise Tappin has just been in the news but that, according to Misplaced Pages's own policies, does not make him worthy of an encyclopedic entry. In a nutshell he was a bent businessman who tried to sell batteries to the Iranians. Which incidentally never happened.

In the great scheme of things, I don't know why there is a need to keep this article when so many other "news" stories are regularly deleted per se. Please could an admin delete or redirect it article because it violates numerous Misplaced Pages guidelines about one-off news events which are not notable in the great scheme of things (irrespective of the number of contemporaneous references available). (Maybe its title could become a redirect to the article on Arms trafficking or extradition treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom). I sincerely don't think future generations are going to thank us for keeping this story?

Permit me, but using the same logic shown by the editor who removed my initial deletion request on the grounds that there were enough sources to make it WP:N, then that should mean when any celebrity who does anything "scandalous" and get reams of column inches given to it, that would allow the incident/event to have its own article. Where would the mediocrity end? In Tappin's case, the story was a media moment about a crooked businessman who bemoaned the fact he was not immune to extradition to the United States from the UK. But extraditions happen every day that never make the news - this case is no exception. There does not seem to be any case why Tappin should be any different! So can an admin please delete (or redirect) this article particularly as I have seen far more worthier articles get the chop without a whimper.86.181.165.5 (talk) 11:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You proposed the article for deletion which was challenged. The next step is to have a full 7-day community discussion - although, those can be challenging to create when you're editing anonymously. Let's see what I can do. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done I created Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Christopher_Tappin for you, using most of what you had stated above. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Greatuser and G5

Since Greatuser has been identified as a sock of Ali Mohammad Khilji, his contributed articles were created in violation of a block and thus become eligible for deletion under WP:G5. Psychonaut, one of my adoptees, has taken it upon himself to tag what seems like all such articlessome of these with the appropriate deletion template. However, given that the current discussion here, where consensus seems to be leaning towards avoiding G5 deletions where the subject has potential encyclopedic merit, I'm a little wary of going through and blindly removing them all. I'm bringing this here because I'd like a second (or y'know, however many) opinion; my take is that under the existing policy deletion of these pages is correct (even if that policy may be changed by a new consensus in the near future), but I'd like to hear what others think. Note: I'm asking this only in relation to Greatuser's tagged articles; I don't want to rehash the discussion currently taking place at the Village Pump here. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Under current policy, edits by banned users can (and usually are) reverted on sight, that those edits created articles is immaterial. There may be well be a case to be made for discussing that policy's future, but I don't think making exceptions now is the right way to go about it. — Coren  14:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall being an adoptee of User:Yunshui, or of anyone else for that matter. As far as I can tell I've been editing here many years longer than they have… It's also not true that I have tagged all of User:Greatuser's articles for CSD under G5. I have tagged only those articles which do not have substantial edits by other users. These constitute a minority. I started keeping track of my own CSDs earlier this year; you can see from the list at User:Psychonaut/CSD log that I've been very active in CSD G5 tagging and that pretty much all the articles have been deleted. (If some of them are blue links this is always, or almost always, because the article was recreated by another user.) —Psychonaut (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry; I got you confused with User:Psychonavigation... shows how good an adopter I am, when I can't even get my adoptees' names right. Heartfelt apologies. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. My point remains, though, that based on my past uncontroversial record of CSD G5 tagging, there's no evidence that my recent batch is outside policy. Should the Village Pump discussion ever result in a change to the CSD G5 policy, you can be sure that I'll modify my future tagging behaviour accordingly. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If somebody wants to go through the banned editor's contributions and verify them as valid, they can adopt the edits as their own by removing the tags. This should be done carefully with thought, definitely not automatically. If nobody is willing to check the contributions, they should be deleted. No information is better than wrong information. Jehochman 14:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Bingo. GiantSnowman 14:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. In the specific case of User:Greatuser, please check the articles carefully before removing the tags. This sockpuppeteer is notorious for creating hoax articles, and for the generally very poor quality of non-hoax information he contributes. (Read through his enormous talk page archive for all the warnings and complaints he's received about "ruining" good articles.) Personally I think it's easier to just nuke all the contributions. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Given the points made by all above, I think it is indeed sensible to apply the nuclear solution - which is what I'm now going to do. Thanks to all (especially Psychonaut, sorry again) for their input. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This also falls under WP:DENY as well. GiantSnowman 15:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

¿Hablo español?

We need an admin that speaks Spanish to look at an SPI case: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Eagle c5. It has been live since 12-20 and really needs action. I speak muy poco, and it appears none of the other clerks do either. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog