User talk:Apteva/Archive 4

New RFC/U about you

Apteva, I have filed an RFC/U about your behavior, as you had encourage me to do: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Apteva. Dicklyon (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

That was rhetorical. Obviously an RFC/U is not called for. Apteva (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Based on the comments of yourself and others there, it seems to be very much called for. My advice: use it for input (advice to yourself), rather than output (we already know what you think, because you've been repeating it for months). Dicklyon (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks. It is clearly not warranted is simply another example of disrupting wikipedia to make a point. Apteva (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hi Apteva, I am writing to inform you that I have closed your RfA per WP:SNOW. I would advise you take to the constructive advice you were given to heart and perhaps try again in the future. v/r AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but that was a bit premature. But I will definitely try again. Apteva (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Apteva 2

Mind if I give you some advice? =)

Although the choice is entirely yours, I recommend withdrawing your RfA. From my experience, I can guarantee you that it stands no chance of success at this point, and there is nothing to be gained from keeping it open any longer. If you do not, it is likely to be closed by another editor anyways, as is common for RfAs which stand virtually no chance for success.

Oh, and just as a heads up, you may want to read up on our harassment policy — its definition is much more narrow than the interpretation which you seem to have adopted.

Take care. =) Kurtis (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Apteva, I feel some sympathy towards you, but I'm afraid many of the oppose voters on your RfA raise some good points. Coming from a fellow editor who wishes to become an administrator at some point, I'd like to suggest you forgo future self-nom RfAs. It's unfortunate that some editors may consider this an automatic negative, but having multiple unsuccessful RfAs on your record is probably even more of a negative. You don't need to sit around waiting for your fairy godmother to come; you can always request one. I want your third RfA to be successful. I really do. But that's probably contingent on waiting a while and taking some of these criticisms to heart. It sucks, but there's no way around it. (P.S. If you're still looking for a mentor, I'm both willing and perfectly understanding if you'd prefer someone of greater stature.) Best, BDD (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes I am looking for a mentor. We both work extensively on RM's and can certainly collaborate, but I would like someone who has been an admin or crat or stew for a few years. Apteva (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Lets look at the opening paragraph of wp:harassment:

Harassment is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely.

The specific instances to harassment for 1) Wikihounding 2) Threats 3) Perceived legal threats 4) Posting of personal information 5) Private correspondence 6) User space harassment do not include all of the instances of harassment. Apteva (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

My purpose in self nominating is to prove that it is possible to become an admin by self nomination. Apteva (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

If you didn't already know about it, you may want to see the essay Wikipedia:Why self-nominated RfA candidates could be more competent. The title is a bit opaque, but it makes some good points. --BDD (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Did not know about it. [Correction: When I got down to the part about Raul654 I realized I had read it before - but my last RfA was in 2009.] I agree that it "is also an indicator that the candidate has a very good self-esteem". Please keep the suggestions coming. Apteva (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

New AN/I complaint about your disruption

I have opened this complaint about your latest disruptive RM: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Apteva disruption. Dicklyon (talk) 01:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Replies at RFC/U

Per guidelines to notify the addressed person, I have replied at:

• WP:Requests_for_comment/Apteva#Outside_view_by_Wikid77

Let me add that I am sorry how you have been hounded about retaining the correct use of hyphens, and also thank you for fighting the pro-dash wp:Advocacy movement, while many of us were distracted by other issues during the prior year. I assure you, there are many level-headed people who know to use hyphens, but there are thousands of other issues where users have been too distracted to stop the pro-dash false consensus claims. In fact, I have spent more time writing "–" a thousand times, than acting to fix the problem, which is, of course, to allow hyphen "-" anywhere in text where it has been used historically. What some other editors fail to understand is that when you disagree with the so-called "consensus" to force dashes, then that consensus is over, and a new compromise with you should be sought. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Apteva (talk) 08:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions regarding dashes

Other users feel you're being overly POINTy (I won't bother linking here, I'm sure you've seen it all before) with your Requested Moves. I would agree, to an extent. See, Wikipedia works on consensus (duh, you knew that). By repeatedly requesting moves after they've been denied is to go against consensus formed in the previous requested move. I personally don't have an opinion on the moves, just don't like it coming up again and again. Consensus does change, but not soon. It takes sometimes months, even years for people to change their minds. If you raise an issue one place (say on an article talkpage) and it gets shot down, review the reasons, and go try to change the reasons. If, for example, the MOS is the main reason, go start an RfC (one) on the MOS about ____ and how it should be changed to ___ and see what people say. If people don't come to a consensus for a change, it won't be changed, and that's life. Honestly, I think we should have a sticky-ish PROD for articles without sources. However, consensus is against that, and I'm not going to challenge it. I'd say just deal with it for now, and try again in 6 months or so. Don't feel this post is anything against you, just offering my POV on it. Feel free to remove, archive, cuss at, or do anything with this comment :) Thanks, gwickwire^talk_edits 02:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it is good advice. This page is auto archived - the only reason I delete anything is to keep conversations in one place so they can be followed (other than of course talkback notices). I think bringing things up once every six months it too often though, and would opt for more like once a year. But when brought up, if they are not allowed to proceed, by calling them disruptive, for example, just prolongs the agony, and is counterproductive, when a simple no would work far better. Apteva (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't really have time to delve into this deeper (sorry), but I'd say just wait over a year and then come back with extremely compelling arguments. gwickwire^talk_edits 03:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless of course it goes through this go around in which case there will be no need to bring it up again. Apteva (talk) 03:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Should have been considered Awesome Wikipedian

Honorary Title as Master This editor is a Master Editor and is entitled to display this Platinum Editor Star.

Awarded for actions equivalent to a six-year master editor.

I must commend your continued support of Wikipedia, despite numerous attacks or misleading claims against you, as a truly remarkable example of excellent work for the project. You are clearly a Master Editor. At the same time, I hope this message is not a bother, after all the current flurry of discussions about your actions. I apologize for how I was also misled by the prior harrassing comments posted against you, which painted the false picture that your were somehow a wayward, relative newcomer, rather than a long-term, experienced veteran editor with numerous edits, many as a IP-address editor in the style of academic experts who edit a vast range of articles using rotating IP addresses. Anyway, long story short, perhaps next month we can investigate the options to further designate you as a properly recognized "Awesome Wikipedian". -Wikid77 (talk) 11:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Some people actually use Wikipedia, and I try to make it worth their while, by taking pity on them and making sure that what they find is accurate and correct - and have added a lot of things too. I have not tried to count my edits, but it is certainly over 10,000. Apteva (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your email

Please read the article titled Flogging a dead horse, which should explain the idiom you objected to in the discussion. In American English, the idiom is "beating a dead horse". The phrase "deceased equine" means "dead horse" and a cudgel is an object used to beat things. When I recommended that you put the deceased horse and the bloody cudgel to rest, what that means is that I was asking you to "stop beating a dead horse". There was no threat at all. If you need to, you can request, publicly, that my statement be reviewed at somewhere like ANI; it is your right to do so. Please include a diff of this explanation in your request in a public forum. I dislike private emails, I don't use that system at Wikipedia, anything that needs to be said to me can be said openly, and I will respond to everything on Wikipedia openly here. --Jayron32 18:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Expressions like that need to be used carefully (or not at all) so that they do not sound like something other than what was intended. Apteva (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Trudat. --Jayron32 19:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Backlog

{Moved from User talk:Jc37}

Would you be willing to rip through all of the 102 RM's in the backlog at WP:RM? Some can be re-listed, but closing most of them would be good. Instructions are at WP:RMCI. When you get to Bengali films of 2012 → List of Bengali films of 2012 you do not have to do anything other than remove the RM template from Talk:List of Bengali films of 2012 - the proposer [someone] has already treated the RM as closed and has begun moving the articles - there are about 850 of them. Apteva (talk) 09:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note.

It looks like someone has already closed the bengali one.

I'll see about taking a look at the backlog when I have some free time (whatever that is : ) - jc37 17:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick point of clarification here. I don't believe in treating a discussion as closed until it has actually been closed, so it was not the proposer who moved the pages. Those moves were done on 26 November by User:Sunuraj. So far as I can see the other 850 pages at User:BrownHairedGirl/Film lists for renaming have not yet been moved, and I will open a BOTREQ to move them in accordance with the closure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that was clearly my mistake in jumping to conclusions about who had done the page move, without even so much as checking. Apteva (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem, we all work off asumptions some of the time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Backlog - 124 --Apteva (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• Backlog - 98 --Apteva (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Backlog - 105 --Apteva (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• Backlog - 104 --Apteva (talk) 02:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Benefits from recent hyphen/dash debates

Not having been involved directly in all the prior hyphen/dash talks, your insights have been an eye-opener for me (being an information scientist, your reasoning was clear to see). Certainly, other editors need to learn about the historical use of hyphens, so I think your essay, "wp:Hyphens and dashes" is an excellent start, and I have added computer dash-codes (noting Windows ALT+0150 and Mac Opt+hyphen). However, I think the amount of controversial debating needs to be reported (with mild wording), but an essay can be considered as an "wp:attack page" when it mentions discussions between users, so a separate essay could be created, perhaps "wp:Hyphen/dash debates" where other users could be mentioned (but not by name, only in general), where the trick would be to insert diff-links to pinpoint key arguments in prior debates. That way, the essay would avoid specifics, but the links inside the essay could reveal (quietly) the massive extent of numerous bitter debates. Other users need to know that dashes have been bitterly opposed in many cases, and putting dashes into hyphenated names ('Sea–Tac') has caused confusion where, formerly, dashes were mainly to separate a related thought, or parenthetical phrase. Now, with endashes used to join partnerships, then even longer emdashes are needed to indicate a separate thought—the confusion in endash-partnerships has led to confusion where space-endash means a separate thought, as opposed to endash between non-married partners. Plus, if partners marry, are their dashes consumated as hyphens? We have the 1903 Nobel Prize in Physics for the Becquerel-Pierre-Marie Curie experiments. Is that "Pierre-Marie" or "Pierre–Marie"? Prior to marriage, they could be the Curie–Skłodowska team, but "Skłodowska-Curie" afterward. Or, are hyphens an invasion of privacy versus endashed names? Plus, Wikimedia Commons has used hyphens in photo names, where names in German language use hyphens as separators for German photos. Anyway, by reporting these numerous problems through essays, then new editors would realize that the complex use of dashes has been pushed into Wikipedia, while many editors have tried to object and follow simpler rules. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I was unaware of the debate while it was raging, but would have taken the view "Can't believe anyone actually cares enough to debate it at all and don't even want to know what the result of this RFC is",[1] but would have added, as long as it does not affect article titles. For a bit of humor click "Next edit".

A debate history page would be interesting history. WP:MOS now has a law library type citation of when decisions were made, which in my view is totally absurd. Like really, who cares, and anyone who does can find it easily enough in the talk page archives, or by checking the page history. If anything that sort of annotation is normally found only on a user page. Clearly the false assumption is being made that WP uses stare decisis, where the case that decided the issue needs to be cited. I would avoid diff's in the history and just indicate the month and year and summarize the discussion instead of quoting exactly. I only got involved when I came across the nonsense of using dashes in names of airports, but using them in comets is just plain ludicrous. Apteva (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Binary numeral system/Binary number system

In view of your recenet change int he title of an article, which I undid, I've started this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Binary_numeral_system.2FBinary_number_system Michael Hardy (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Broken structure

I can see why you did this, to move your lame proposal to where it would disappear with the close, but then why didn't you fix the subsections to go with it? Your next edit went in the wrong direction. I fixed. Dicklyon (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

That is a closed RFC. It includes a section titled "Ending the endash/hyphen warring" and does not include the section that should properly have been deleted on sight. Apteva (talk) 02:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

What's up with putting the mrv template on the page

Hi Apteva,

I just noticed your comment to me at Wikipedia_talk:Move_review#Six_months_in.2C_time_to_review_this_process.3F. I was slightly confused on multiple points. I think I largely agree with you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't hide talk about your behavior

As you did here and before. If you feel it's inappropriate, you can ask an uninvolved admin to hide it or to tell us it's not appopriate. But it seems right to me, so stop censoring. Dicklyon (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

If you read WP:FOC as suggested, you would see that "Bringing up conduct often leads to painful digressions and misunderstandings." It is never appropriate to call someone out for behaviour on the talk page, as doing so just pours gasoline on the fire. Hat the discussion, archive it, or move it to their talk page, but never ask them there to amend their remarks. Hatting it though, is how we "tell us it's not appopriate [sic]". Apteva (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you seriously have that much trouble reading WP:FOC, and understanding the words there "Focus on article content, not on editor conduct." Collapsing it does not "hide" it. Deleting it does not "hide" it. Having an admin delete it delete it does not "hide" it (but it does hide it from those who do not need to see it). Only oversighting ever "hides" anything. Apteva (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

In your edit summary, which was typical Dicklyon, marking an edit war as a minor edit, you appear to have little understanding of the role of Administrators. They do not police our edits. We do that ourselves. What admins do is things that we can not do - protect and unprotect, block and unblock, close tendentious discussions. Apteva (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the minor. Someone had advised me to use that setting on my Twinkle revert, and I forget sometimes. I do it over right... Dicklyon (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

That is fine for reverting vandalism. Edit wars are not vandalism. Apteva (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I know you mean well, but....

... you keep derailing my threads in WT:MOS, this last time in Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#What_multiple_reliable_sources_explicitly_say_-_continuing. You are too confrontational. And I'm trying to nail down a narrow topic, and you keep bringing up old broad topics. The discussion on the narrow topic just gets lost between the constant rehashes of the old topics. I know that you mean well, but it's very frustrating for me. Have you considered going back to editing articles and leaving MOS discussions? --Enric Naval (talk) 13:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The titling of articles, including comets, is not a MOS issue, but solely a WP:TITLE issue. See [2] and WP:TPUN. All that is needed is to adopt WP:Title punctuation as a guideline and edit the MOS to say "Article titles are determined using the WP:Article titles policy." And delete all of the remaining nonsense in that section. Apteva (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U for Apteva: move to close

I am notifying all participants in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Apteva that Dicklyon has moved to close the RFC/U, with a summary on the talkpage. Editors may now support or oppose the motion, or add comments:

• Link to the move to close

Please consider adding your signature, so that the matter can be resolved.

Best wishes,

Noetica^Tea? 04:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Motion

I have reworded the first motion:

Apteva's personal views over en dashes and hyphens are widely opposed by the community, and as a result, Apteva agrees to refrain from any further advocacy of this position and related positions. Apteva is discouraged from making or requesting any action based on such views, and if such behaviour continues, the issue should be brought to the Arbitration Committee.

I think this is more concise and fits better what is happening. Although, my rewording needs your agreement and, because it was done after most of the votes were registered, it is considered, for obvious reasons, an alternative just in case that you agree. I guess this is the best way to go. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Better, but still needs improvement. Apteva (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

What would you add? or remove? As a neutral party, I am interested in your thoughts about it. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of an RFC/U is to discuss with the user some particular problem instead of just blocking them. It is another tool in the chest other than just a hammer. The editor who proposed the RFC/U is not the one who should have proposed it, as they are no stranger to WP:Point and that RFC/U is no exception to that. The level of distraction that I was causing by bringing a hundred RM's is far less than the level of distraction that was caused by misspelling airports and comets with dashes instead of hyphens as they should all be using. There is a time and a place for everything, and there is no problem with bringing this up again in a year, as there are 20 editors and counting who support the community wide ban on hyphen/dash edits and discussion for one year. Apteva (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I know, but the methods you are using to showcase this uncorrectness are working against you. I don't hold a preference for en dashes or hyphens (I like to use em-dashes because they look pretty on my signature, but I am somewhat ignorant about which is correct on article titles, althout it seems that community isn't). My personal recommendation is to agree with my summary, if you like, let the waters calm down, and slowly bring, with a different approach, this matter in the future. I guess that such is the best way to bring an end to this. Do you agree? — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey. I hope you have read this. I'd like to keep talking to you about this so we can reach a solution. I wouldn't like to see you at the front of ArbCom because of this, as I am pretty sure someone will take you there regardless of the closure of the RFC, and I want to avoid it at all costs. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The RFC is nothing but harassment, and as such violates the rules of RFC/U. I certainly will not give anyone a reason to bring in Arbcom. I am not sure there is anything else that can be or needs to be done. Apteva (talk) 02:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, me neither. I have seen a lot of comments that seem not to be neutral there, and I guess that's why you need to stay out of the spotlight. I did the same when I ran into some trouble back in November. My actions were questionable, I admit it, but there was no reason to escalate the thing at AN/I, and because of that, I got a NAC restriction and I am somewhat banned from making any non-admin closure on the site. Why? Because some users melt together to achieve that goal. That's how this works, the majority's desire is what will prevail. It is somewhat sad when applied in the wrong way, and as a direct consequence, I have seen very good users being scared off from the site. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Tell me about it. Wikipedia gets about a C right now, passing, but not college material. My sole goal in making any contributions is to improve that to an A. This is the latest gem I ran across. Is it supposed to be suppurative granuloma or supperative granuloma. Any first year medical student should be able to sort it out. There are no shortage of references spelled each way. A good analogy of the mass mentality is Lord of the Flies. Hint - no government in the world functions much better. The British House of Lords is a shouting match, and the US Congress is totally dysfunctional. Israel has been around for 60 years without being able to even agree on a Constitution. Although it is an old joke that if there are two Jews they will disagree, and if one leaves the one remaining will argue with themself. Suggestion to the close issue - become an admin (try again next year). Apteva (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, sometimes Wikipedia's standards favour one point of view (or one naming convetion) over another. What I have learned is that, sometimes, community is not ready to change. I have seen this throughout all my wikicareer. Also, thanks for the suggestion :) Although, I am not sure if I will turn the link blue anytime soon. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I was advised to try again in three months and forgot all about it for three years. If your activity remains relatively high I would guess that mid to late next year will be about right for your next try. If your first try was a self nom, having someone else do the nom stacks the deck in your favor, not something that is important to me. Basically if you are serious and sincere, there is no reason to not being an admin, if you are willing to put up with the abuse that comes with the territory. I have seen some interesting and unprintable explanations of "why I do not want to be an admin". I can think of one MOS regular who was desysop'd, and more than one that would be advised not to even think of being a sysop. Basically admin work is totally different than edit work. It is a necessary function, but requires a level of trust. Apteva (talk) 05:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Redundant signatures

Could you please explain why you keep re-signing an already signed post at Talk:Lake Eyre?[3][4] Your edit summary "format for wp:rm" doesn't really explain why the post needs two signatures. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, your signature is fine, but it messes up the bot that is listing the move request at WP:RM. This is not your problem, it is a limitation of the bot that will hopefully be corrected with some clever programming at some point. See WP:RMCI#Bot considerations for more details. Apteva (talk) 04:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

And I do not know if you have changed your sig or someone else modified it but the sig above should work fine with the bot. I would definitely not want you to change your sig for the bot - it is the bot that needs to be fixed if anything. Apteva (talk) 05:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not my sig that you're re-signing, it's the nominator's sig. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, right, well, I hope the explanation helps. Apteva (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Only warning

Hi, so I see you're the subject of the RFC and you feel the RFC was wrongly brought. That's fine. As you well know an RFC doesn't result in a specific sanction. But, you're being disruptive. Among other things this shows a complete lack of understanding regarding how to edit collaboratively. If you are disruptive or fail to edit collaboratively in the future, I will indefinitely block your account. MBisanz ^talk 06:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Want to be a mentor? Apteva (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

No. You're an experienced editor and people have explained their concerns, which you have not accepted, so you would be no more likely to accept the concerns of a mentor. Either you will decide to stop being disruptive and edit collaboratively or you will be prevented from engaging in more disruption. MBisanz ^talk 06:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Clearly I have no interest in being blocked. I am here to help and for no other reason. I am surprised that that is not crystal clear. But like I said, all anyone needs to do is add a sentence here if they have any complaints or criticism. All suggestions are welcome. Apteva (talk) 07:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is a bizarre question. Why would an admin take time to issue a warning to a clearly productive and helpful editor? Something is seriously wrong. Apteva (talk) 07:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Lets check the word disruptive and see how it is used on Wikipedia.

First there is Wikipedia:Disruptive user

1. Creating disturbances on featured article candidate pages, e.g. objecting just to object - No
2. Continuously listing articles at Articles for deletion as an attempt to insult those who have worked on or contributed to the pieces - No
3. Calling users names or referring to articles that the user has worked on in a derogatory manner - No
4. Posting rumors or lies about other Wikipedia users, such as false accusations of vandalism - No
5. Leaving hostile messages on a user's talk page, or attacking a user for items discussed with a third party on their talk page - No

Okay, so far nothing there.

Then there is Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Here we get a little closer, but never cross the line.

• Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors. - No (I am definitely tenacious, but not tendentious, despite the accusations to the contrary)
• Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. - No
• Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{citation needed}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable. - No
• Does not engage in consensus building:
  • repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; - No
  • repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits. - No
• Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors. - No

In addition, such editors may:

• Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rule-abiding editors on certain articles. - No

Oh well, nothing to do but keep on fixing things that need fixing. Apteva (talk) 08:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I would endorse an indefblock at this point. To be blunt, either you know you're wrong and you're refusing to admit it, or you don't know that you're wrong. Classic WP:IDHT. --Rschen7754 08:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

That would be silly. Wikipedia would lose an excellent editor for no reason whatsoever. Feel free to change as many no's to yes's as you think apply, [and I will be certain to work on those areas]. Apteva (talk) 08:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

But the problem is that people have told you what the problem is, and you just reject it with some excuses or rationalizations. You'll probably tell me I'm wrong here too. --Rschen7754 08:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I take criticism very seriously. I also get a lot of criticism for things that I should not be criticized for, but commended for - as an admin I am certain that happens to you as well. The folks at MOS railroaded through some edits last year that are totally bizarre and did not have consensus when they were made. The result is not good for Wikipedia, and I am looking for a way to fix that problem. Suggestions are welcome. Apteva (talk) 08:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

There was an ArbCom case/motion about dashes last year with a resulting RFC that resulted in the standards that we have today. It is disruptive to rehash those debates again, whether you agree with the results or not. Please don't make us revisit them again; ArbCom had to be brought in to stop the fighting for a reason. --Rschen7754 08:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I am sure I can find other things that need to be fixed, but the fact that arbcom had to be called in last year is a serious problem in itself. Everyone knows that there is a civility problem at MOS, I would suggest fixing that first. For example, making everyone go to the help desk for questions about implementing the MOS, and immediate warnings to everyone who violates WP:FOC, or uses the MOS talk page as a "round up the posse" page to go vote on an RM or fix a dash that someone used incorrectly. That is not what talk pages are for, and it creates the civility problem that exists there. Talk about not editing collaboratively, yeesh. Right now the entire page should be treated as a DR page, and only edited if there is a DR volunteer present. There are about half a dozen editors who do almost all of the damage. Apteva (talk) 09:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Other areas to apply your talent

Hi, Wikid77 here. I finally see what you have been facing in the dash/hyphen discussions (after reading wp:SSF). It took me a while to see the core problem is "Style über Alles" as the age-old problem of "form over substance" and that explains what seems like those self-righteous refusals to improve the wp:MOS. Hence, "style is never wrong, merely inappropriate". Encyclopedia Britannica has used hyphens for decades in "Michelson-Morley experiment" but recently changed to dash. It is a choice to spell "Congress" as "Congreff" because it looks like an old-time style, and using alternate letters is not wrong or "mispelled" but rather "restyled"(!). That avenue is obviously a deadend for rational thinking, period. You and others have documented so many issues, and now we can expand from there with future writings.

These are some other pages to ponder:

• Article "form over substance" - did not even exist after 12 years of Wikipedia (Google: search 162,000 results)
• Essay wp:Manual_of_Substance - shift the form-over-substance view toward practical rules about article contents, noting wp:ACCESS to keyboard keys
• Essay wp:NOTMOS (What style is not) - to explain the limits where style interferes with productivity or usability of WP
• Any essays on wp:IAR - because the simple phrase "ignore all rules" seems boundless, then more essays could clarify when IAR is a practical alternative, with examples
• Essay wp:Cyberbullying - more needs to be explained, how one person's bully is another person's stylist who is never wrong

By broadening Wikipedia's coverage of major issues which compete against style-based or functional-based tunnel vision, then other editors could better understand how the style rules seem to be a wp:MOSque of self-righteous beliefs, even though that was not their original intent, and people laughing at the style guide would have logical explanations.
However, I must agree with you how others now will see "goofy rules" in the current system, but by broadening the pages about those issues, then more educated people will realize that Wikipedia is not so backward as they might have thought. By those means, we can elevate Wikipedia's reputation without megabytes of discussion with people who are never wrong. That could give hope to the "hidden" college professors who edit WP as anon IP addresses, for fear of dealing with the current rules. Does that seem reasonable next year? -Wikid77 (talk) 12:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting suggestions. The MOS today is poorly constructed, and poorly written (the MOS does not even follow itself). Instead of working collaboratively to construct it, there are daily edit wars, which is why it is under 1RR sanctions. The current mentality of those editing it appears to be, to try to make every article the same. That is simply not possible, and not a plausible goal for Wikipedia. The focus on MOS should be to specify how articles are laid out, not how to use punctuation, and not try to teach good writing. It is a completely false assumption that title policy chooses the letters to use for an article title and that MOS determines the punctuation to use between words. As pointed out, if that was the case we would end up with ridiculous spellings for comets and airports - like we now have for comet Hale-Bopp, and for Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. I would rather fix the MOS than write essays about it being garbage, but I certainly could write something about cyberbullying. Wikipedia has a lot of brilliant writers, and it would be trivial to bring the MOS back to reality - and have it provide form and substance. As to "Wikipedia is not so backward as they might have thought" I do not see that - I would say it is worse than they thought - or just as bad as it seems. Until people have reason to stop saying "Read any [WP] article on a topic you are expert in, and roll your eyes (and forget about trying to correct it, by the way)", we are not "there" yet. But there is certainly hope. Wikipedia is constructed a lot like the five blind people describing an elephant - each of us has something to add, and by collaborating we can get a better view of what an elephant is. Apteva (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

RE : username

my username will remain the same so please do not send me another spam message about it Wickedangry (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

No need to get angry about it though. It just is not what I would call an appropriate username. Apteva (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

well what's wrong with my username ? i'm just sick of seeing messages on my talk page saying "check out the tea house, change your settings, change your username ect. Wickedangry (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

To me it indicates that the editor might be wicked and angry. But that is just me, others may find it to be a perfectly acceptable username. If you like it I would wait to see if anyone else complains and then think about changing it then. I see that you are a valuable contributor - but have already attracted a block history. I would recommend thinking about asking for a mentor - someone who can help you personally. See WP:Mentor and Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user if you are interested. You can request adoption by simply adding {{subst:dated adoptme}} to your user page, User:Wickedangry, or you can go to Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters and pick anyone there. There is also a button at the bottom of that page that launches a widget that helps edit your user page and not only add the request but fill in information that would be helpful. No one wants anyone to be frustrated, and not be able to be as productive as they can. A mentor gives you a single point contact who can help you. Apteva (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Beyond dashes

I am seeing more evidence that "opposing dashes" causes people to attack, so the plan is to proceed cautiously. Meanwhile, the pro-dash obsession has shoved dashes into articles where many problems still exist, such as lack of content, lack of measurement conversions, and even comma errors despite being another issue which wp:MOS fans should have fixed. Anyway, I agree with you to focus on "fixing 4 million" articles, such as during the January 2013 wp:GOCE drive. Otherwise, some leads to follow (which you might already know) include:

• RfA/KTC shows can be admin with "21 Opposes" (even 35) when enough friends via UK show Support (no SNOW-close).
• User:Pmanderson style expert was blocked 9 February 2012 for wp:SOCK after a hyphen/dash topic ban led to talking as another username.
• User:Pmanderson was the first to put "no consensus" in wp:CON, which could lead to contentious rules removed as truly no-consensus footing to push rule.
• Reversed names in astronomy refer to different objects, as User:Enric_Naval noted, where formal name "Nunam-Sila" would not be "Sila-Nunam" unlike "Juliet-Romeo story" being the same story.
• Talk:Mexican-American_War/Archive_4 (redirect) has hounding of admin who "dared" discuss dashes after closing prior RM; also quip of "dash debate longer" than Mexican+American War.
• Enric will contact IAU if they have plans to use dashes
• Timing is everything, as the Zeitgeist to stop the pro-dash Anschluss might be mid-2013
• Some survivors include: "McGraw-Hill" or "Julia Louis-Dreyfuss" but might be next re-victims

In general, the dashification has been massive, and now, thanks to your vigilance, I even cringe when I see Google Search show WP's peculiar endashed titles while 95% of the real world uses hyphens (99% have not endashed "hand-eye coordination" as 4x more common than all UK "eye~hand coordination"). I hope to find a better month to discuss dashes without getting blocked, but meanwhile, use quick ways to bypass dashes to fix numerous other problems "while Nero fiddli-dashed" to thwart progress. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Administrator's noticeboard, fyi

There is a discussion of sorts involving you: here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that Erik. I didn't, because I considered it to be a mere administrative request for something already notified rather than a discussion about an editor.

Since Apteva has not come to terms with the consensual view endorsed at the RFC/U, it would now seem reasonable to obtain an ArbCom motion (not a full case, I think).

Noetica^Tea? 18:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

American Academy of Nurse Practitioners

Hello Apteva
I was trying to fix the RM for this page and a) didn't notice 'til now that you'd already fixed it, and b) managed to cock it up even worse. My apologies! Have you any idea how to fix it? Moonraker12 (talk) 12:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

See this diff[5]. There are hidden characters in the year that are messing up the bot but I have no idea what they are or how to avoid them. Apteva (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Ban sought

I have called for a ban at WP:AN#Proposal for topic ban for Apteva. I expect you'll want to respond. Dicklyon (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding all the commotion

Well, we've all watched as the hubbub at the RfC concluded, with the process now moving into other forums. At any rate, I'd like to express a view that I would guess many other editors share at the moment. While sympathetic to your views regarding the appropriateness of dash and hyphen forms, I think that a consensus has been reached regarding the matter. Despite the diversity of opinions regarding the matter, one particular interpretation has been determined here. It is possible that you are indeed correct; however, things have deescalated on both sides to a point where the debate over dash use has become a distraction and something of a problem. I sincerely hope that you would be willing to give in on this one. Even if you continue advocating for your opinions on the matter, and even if the edits you've done aren't necessarily disruptions or inappropriate actions, things have really gotten out of hand. If you would be willing to abide by some of the requests made at the RfC, I think many editors would be able to focus their energies elsewhere, and, perhaps, there might be a more receptive forum to your ideas at some point in the future. dci | TALK 23:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

All of the drama is a direct result of the lack of civility at the MOS. Hopefully that will change. Apteva (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps things haven't been ideal all around; I think, however, that quieting things down regarding this dispute would be in everyone's best interests right now. dci | TALK 00:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Could not agree more. I was joking that if I wanted to make sure that someone failed their RfA, all I had to do was support it, and there would be at least 28 editors who I can think of who would automatically oppose, just because of not wanting to agree with me on anything. Apteva (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I hope I'm not being an annoyance here, but I guess I have one last thing to say. Would you possibly consider the option of voluntarily abstaining from these discussions for a time; during that period, you could devote yourself to your content development work. That way, things can relax, and you would be able to withdraw from this issue without the baggage of a topic ban, which might be inevitable given how discussion has been going. At any rate, I wish you the best during this problem, and hope that you consider moving away from the issue of dashes for a while. dci | TALK 01:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

That sounds fair enough. Apteva (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

By the way, my talk page is always open, and I always take criticism seriously. Nothing is ever deleted, other than conversations started on another user's talk page or any talkback messages. I may be missing something else, but that has always been my policy. Apteva (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your openness and for considering this; again, best of luck in the future. dci | TALK 01:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, you too. Apteva (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Voluntary step aside, for a time

Would you be willing to do that temporary "recusal" from the dash-or-hyphen dispute? If you are, I'd suggest putting your response at the admins' noticeboard; that way, the problem can be resolved sans sanctions and sans more drama. Cheers, and a Happy New Year, dci | TALK 04:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It already is there, but I will take a look. Apteva (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Apteva, I would really advise avoiding further conversation within the topic ban discussion over at the Administrator's noticeboard. There are some editors who will support a topic ban just because they see you are defending yourself in the debate. And I do think the "Alternate Proposal" section is shooting yourself in the foot. You brought up the incivility on MOS debates in a discussion about topic banning you. Some editors will view that as attempting to deflect the conversation, so you may wish to consider striking the proposal.

As for defending you, right now there are enough editors opposed to the topic ban that you don't need to worry about it. The best thing you can do right now is to go back to improving articles. You have waded into a small portion of a much larger Manual of Style debate. My second suggestion would be to stop trying to get the policy changed regarding em dashes and dashes. Yes, it is silly having titles using em dash when every reader on the planet is going to type in a dash, but is it really worth getting blocks or bans over a few extra pixels? The policy is never going to change due to the widespread use, you need to accept that and move on. Now I don't mean to be blunt, but if you continue this it isn't going to end well. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Alas, things haven't gone well at the noticeboard, and it appears a topic ban may be the only possible resolution for the issue. I would still advise that you make an explicit statement - new one - that says that you will voluntarily abstain. dci | TALK 20:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for avoiding future MOS: Wow, I see others appreciate your widespread work on Wikipedia, so I too am happy to see you take the high ground and step away from the fight. I had thought that there were more mainstream editors aware of the issues, but another hounded editor recently noted the low pageviews of wp:MOS (stats ~MOS), as only 120 per day, but "~Manual_of_Style" gets 1,300 daily pageviews (stats). Evidentally, long-term editors (typing "wp:MOS") do not much care, but 1,300 newcomers initially wonder and click on "~Manual_of_Style" until they check it out (and eyes glaze over). I honestly did not realize that long-term editors forgetaboutit. So, I am glad that you have been moving on to the important stuff now. Whatever happens at wp:AN, you are thankfully out of that prior mess. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Manual of Style averages just over 1,000 pageviews per day, showing that it's pretty irrelevant in the WP scheme of things. LittleBen (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Asia topic

As a participant of the discussion Talk:Palestine#Requested_move regarding naming change of the page Palestine, you might be interested in discussion Template talk:Asia topic#State of Palestine on changing the title "Palestinian territories" to "State of Palestine" at Template:Asia topic. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but not interested. In general it is pointless to canvass notify me on issues such as this. Apteva (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Just in defense of Greyshark; this doesn't appear to be canvassing. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

True. But I regularly look over all of the proposed RMs so telling me about one is pointless. In this case it is more of a meta discussion of "Palestine" vs "Palestinian territories", of which I have really said all I need to say on the issue. But irregardless, I edit thousands of articles via WP:RCP and other than the hundreds that I return to regularly already, I have little to no interest in being called back to revisit any of the others. I see a lot of "I know you are interested" or "you might be interested" posts on other editors talk pages. For me, if I was interested I would likely already go there on my own. Apteva (talk) 06:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice of community sanction

Based upon community consensus at the administrators' noticeboard, the following sanction is in place with immediate effect:

Apteva is topic banned indefinitely from modifying or discussing the use of dashes, hyphens, or similar types of punctuation, broadly construed, including but not limited to at the manual of style and any requested move discussion. Apteva may appeal these restrictions by filing at the administrators' noticeboard after a reasonable amount of time has passed. Violation of this ban may be reported at the incident noticeboard and may result in a block from any uninvolved administrator.

If you have any questions regarding the specifics of this sanction, please feel free to ask. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Regrets: I am sorry that the decision was so quick, and more people were not allowed to investigate the whole situation. Perhaps many users in January do not have extra time, so the regulars are left to decide all, as January is one of those months. I see that vague claims in RfC/U were considered "evidence" so that is another loophole used. We need better guidelines for measuring consensus, and everyday I am thankful there are intelligent people who can make improvements. When Jimbo founded WP, he didn't just show the world knowledge, he revealed the alternative as well. So, I see many professors edit only as rotating IPs, to avoid a targeted username. Anyway, I will leave you in peace for a few weeks, because they made claims we were in a "conspiracy" or some other false crap, and you are still in danger, hence warnings to avoid wp:AN. In January 2010, they gave me both a topic-ban, plus a 30-day block, but I was able to edit German Wikipedia, Spanish Wikipedia, French Wikipedia, and Simple Wikipedia, which all need years of help. At this point, silence here is best. Good luck for now. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Though we've never met before, I just wanted to say - I admire your spirit. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)