Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Apteva

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing discussion, along with the RFC/U itself. The matter has been referred to WP:AN for further action. See details and links in the summary at the bottom of the RFC/U page.

---

Noetica^Tea? 23:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Desired outcome

There are always disputes and there always need to be appropriate ways to propose changes. A section will be added to the MOS for those proposed changes. Stifling suggestions is never appropriate. Apteva (talk) 03:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Sorry but this is absolutely absurd. Hyphens are used exclusively in airport names and comet names, and by a 50:1 margin in bridges and wars, such as in Mexican-American War. How can anyone call that an overwhelming consensus to use an endash? The overwhelming consensus is the opposite - to use a hyphen, and the MOS needs to be corrected. Apteva (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

That is comet Hale-Bopp, and Mexican-American War. Spell it correctly. Apteva (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of Outside view by Kurtis

• The problem is that I would guess that easily 90% of editors neither know nor care to know the difference between a hyphen and an endash. I happen to be one of those who are fully aware of the difference and the correct use of each. There is no style guide in the real world, or grammar guide, that says that Mexican-American War is spelled with an endash, because it simply is not spelled with one 98% of the time - in books that could just as easily used whatever they chose, endash or hyphen, whichever they thought was more correct. Some style guides occasionally give bad advice. Ours is one that is doing that now. The examples of "Delhi–Sidney flight" and "North Carolina–Virginia border" are correct, but if either should become a proper noun, such as "Mexican-American War", or "Roman-Persian Wars", the spelling would change to a hyphen. The hyphen is conveniently located on all keyboards and should be encouraged as a valid option, instead of making everyone use an endash, even when an endash is correct, and using an endash when a hyphen is required, such as in the name of an airport, such as Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, or in a comet, such as Hale-Bopp, is patently absurd. Apteva (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Believe it or not Apteva, I actually agree with you in principle. That's beside the point. The fact is, we have to abide by widely accepted academic standards because Wikipedia is an academic source (well... in its own special way, it is), no matter how pedantic they may seem. And I'm afraid you're incorrect in your assertion that "there is no style guide in the real world...that says that Mexican-American War is spelled with an endash", as the external links I've provided have demonstrated. You are also wrong when you say that "a hyphen is required" for things such as the Seattle–Tacoma International Airport or the Hale–Bopp comet, as I've already explained above. Colloquially, of course I don't worry about hyphens and dashes — the former is readily available on my keyboard, and so I use it. It's just not worth wasting all the extra time trying to change something which even you would admit is of such little importance. Kurtis (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

    Please check the sources and provide a specific link to a style guide that uses Mexican-American War as an example of using an endash. Dictionaries spell it with a hyphen, why would any style guide pretend it was spelled with an endash? Using a hyphen instead of an endash is of little importance. Misusing a hyphen with an endash in your own publication is of no importance. Anyone who reads a book that misspells the comet Hale-Bopp with an endash can simply grit their teeth and ignore it. But Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, can and will get corrected. Readers attempted to fix Mexican-American War to use a hyphen half a dozen times, and will certainly continue to attempt to fix it in the future. We have a policy on naming articles that says to use the most common usage, and that is clearly a hyphen, by a 50:1 margin. Choosing to spell it the way only 2% spell it just goes completely against the way Wikipedia does things. As to comets, it is black and white - there is an actual naming authority that arbitrates comet names and they state that only spaces and hyphens are used. A half a dozen editors who know nothing about the subject are holding hostage to the idea that the wrong punctuation is correct, a simply absurd position. Apteva (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I leave the burden of proof to you, Apteva. Explicitly refute what I and others have been saying using links of your own, rather than repeating the same argument ad nauseaum without really backing it up. Kurtis (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

This is pointless. You say, see, here is how endashes are used, they all say the same thing. And none use goofy examples that are false like to spell a comet or Mexican-American War with an endash. All use valid examples of using endashes. Look at the RM's that were proposed. All use countless examples showing that a hyphen is the correct choice. Apteva (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The sources provided by Kurtis don't contradict Apteva's view, and they contradict our MOS in several points:

• http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/dashes.asp most common usages of dash are "periods of time when you might otherwise use to" and " in place of a hyphen when combining open compounds"
• http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/hyphens.asp and it recommends a comma between two adjectives where you can replace it with "and", our MOS recommends a dash
• http://cutewriting.blogspot.ca/2008/06/en-dash-em-dash-and-hyphen.html#axzz2DkahPVln endash is only for "a range of values or a distance" and "compound adjectives in which the two participant terms themselves are compound"
• http://www.jpetrie.net/2011/06/04/the-en-dash-vs-the-hyphen-examples-for-more-precise-english-usage/ Hyphen and dash are interchangeable, there are only a few situations where hyhen it's unacceptable, the situations listed don't fit the names of borders, airports, comets, etc.
• http://www.dashhyphen.com/ compounds are only made with hyphens, dashes are only to separate sentences

Meanwhile, I have provided dozens of reliable sources that explicitly say that comet names are hyphenated, including astronomical publications, and supporters of dash compounds have refused to take them into account. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: "The problem is that I would guess that easily 90% of editors neither know nor care to know the difference between a hyphen and an endash."

That's not actually a problem at all, since those who do care about the distinction will silently fix it later with a minor edit if you use the wrong one. This RFC/U is not about the relative merits of either side of the debate, but about your (Apteva's) disruptive behavior. That's a distinction that is important. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 00:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

PS: It just doesn't f'ing matter that you can come up with a handful of sources that agree with you. MOS is not an article. It's an explicitly prescriptive in-house style guide that exists to reduce editorial strife and produce a more consistent experience for readers. For virtually any grammar rule you can think of, someone can find a conflicting source somewhere that disagrees with MOS. MOS has to pick a rule, sometimes arbitrarily (this is not an arbitrary one, but one supported by the most, and the best-accepted, offline sources, BTW) and stick to it, even if a person here or there wants it the opposite way. By definition, any rule in any style guide will make some people unhappy – style guides do not contain rules about things that everyone already agrees on (e.g. that "squirrel" is spelled "squirrel" not "yacht", or that we write left-to-right in English. Just get over it and move on. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 00:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Format of RFC/Us

I have to say that the format of these RFC/U's is more than bizarre, and is set up more like a lynch mob than anything else. The fact is that I follow guidelines and policies. The fact is that there is a procedure to change those guidelines and policies and I follow that procedure. If someone does not like me or anyone else doing that, then that is absurd. End of story. Apteva (talk) 09:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Agree RFC/U format needs improvement, such as opposition sections: I was stunned that the RFC/U is still geared to rally support votes, rather than directly oppose misguided summaries. At the least, a section of oppose votes should follow each support section, with links to the talk-page to discuss details of opposition. The idea of creating another "View by User:X" to oppose a prior editor's viewpoint is evidence of POV-unbalanced treatment of issues, and shows the bizarreness of the format. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Has anyone read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Rules? "RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary." clearly applies. Apteva (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on Outside view by Andy Dingley

Wikipedia has no reason to incorrectly use dashes where hyphens are correctly used. Like most editors, hyphens are normally entered directly from the keyboard. A very small number of editors take the trouble to enter dashes instead. A small number of editors correct hyphens to dashes where dashes are correctly used, such as in a paragraph of text where someone writes, the Beatles from 1964-70 is correctly corrected to 1964–70, or 1964–1970. There are also a small number of editors who have decided that dashes can be correctly [sic] applied to comets, wars, airports, and bridges. None of those are correct. There are two objections that I have. I personally think that dashes should not be used in article titles. Hyphens are only about three pixels shorter than endashes and are much easier to use in titles. But that is a totally separate issue. The second issue and much more important issue is to use hyphens where hyphens are correct, and use dashes where dashes are correct. It is not rocket science. Check current use. If someone finds that Mexican-American War is spelled with a hyphen by a 50:1 margin, use a hyphen on Wikipedia. If someone finds that comets are spelled with a hyphen by the naming authority, the IAU, use a hyphen. Anything else is absurd. But also, hyphens are a suitable substitute for dashes, and WP should lighten up on thinking that they have to be corrected. Fix them in FA's and FAC's, but leave them alone, or make them be consistent on GA's and all other articles (if there is one, leave it, if there are two, fix the hyphen into a dash, if more do whichever anyone does first - make them all hyphens or all dashes, but if they are all hyphens, leave them as hyphens). Apteva (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

This is the problem in a nutshell:

1. The "small" number of editors you disagree with represent the current consensus.
2. You are an even smaller number of editor who has decided that that consensus is incorrect.
3. Despite knowing that consensus disagrees with you, you rely on your claimed correctness to turn your disruptive editing pattern into something acceptable.

It doesn't. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

No, the problem is that errors need to be corrected, and there needs to be and is an orderly manner of making those corrections, a procedure which I am following. Whether I am correct or not is not the question. The question is are hyphens or dashes used in airports, comets, wars, and bridges? It is trivial to show that hyphens and not dashes are used in all four. It is idiotic to hold fast to any other position. Should I quote Kotniski? "I'm feeling a great sense of relief that I won't be spending tomorrow or the next day arguing with morons about trivia." Does this ring a bell? Or this? "I am no longer willing to subject myself to the abuse that is the price for participating in Wikipedia" It is the incivility that is a problem at MOS, and I am not one of those being incivil. I am fully aware that half of the population has half the intelligence that I have, and I have no problem with that. I recognize that for anyone in the upper half of the intelligence spectrum they have just as much trouble explaining themself as those in the lower half have in understanding things. One of my strengths is the ability to explain things in a manner that makes them easily understood by anyone. But seriously, Wikipedia has a responsibility to be accurate and correct, and I see no reason to be sanctioned for wanting to see this happens. This is not stupedia, although there is a wiki that is somewhat like that. Apteva (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I, and I assume the others as well, understand that points you are making, but you are using sources of different type of expertise from what you are arguing against. If you haven't yet I suggest you read this essay. While I understand it is by someone you are having a disagreement with, it does a good job of covering why your well researched arguments and data are being discounted. PaleAqua (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia decides the names of articles by two sources - official names and common usage. Both show that comets, bridges, wars, and airports are spelled with hyphens. I have traced the source of the MOS to wanting to use endashes to comments like "they look better", and "to make it clear that it wasn't (or at least not especially) a war about Mexican-Americans, but rather between Mexicans and Americans". Both of which are complete malarky. As to specialist sources, I do a lot of work at WP:RM, and often the question comes up of specialist sources, and generally we prefer to use what would be more commonly used, but that is what wp:rm is for, to discuss titles. There is nothing in wikipedia that is "settled" and not available for discussion. Discussing constantly - no, but bringing it up from time to time, absolutely. The point though, is not that my points are being discounted, but that they are not even discussed. Apteva (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This is where we are talking past each other. You are arguing that the punctuation is part of the spelling of the name, the majority of others in the discussion so far are arguing that it is part of style. Thus, regardless of how many examples you show with it spelled with a hyphen those on the other side don't it as argument against a style decision and thus give little weight to that data. Reiterating the same data and points will not change the opinions. You will need to prove that it is an issue of spelling and not style. You are merely asserting that. PaleAqua (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

"Discussing constantly - no". Bingo! That is what this RfC is about. Do agree you are discussing constantly despite the consensus against you, and if not, why aren't you refuting that accusation? Nobody will ban you just for liking hyphens. Art LaPella (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Definitely not. I brought it up in August or so and there has been very little real discussion on the issue. I have better things to do than to discuss it constantly, and so does everyone else. I asked for mediation, and no one even wanted to find out the proper answer by participating. But the issue of style vs. spelling is an important, but secondary question. Even if punctuation was considered style, WP does not normally choose styles that no one else uses, but certainly not using title case for headings is a case where we do. But as I see it there are two choices, create problems or solve problems. My choice is the latter every time. Using dashes where hyphens are more appropriate does nothing but cause problems and serves absolutely no purpose. Apteva (talk) 04:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

You definitely don't constantly discuss en dashes? Here is a more statistically precise answer to that question. I searched your edits for any significant edits related to en dashes versus hyphens, with no attempt to distinguish justifiable from unjustifiable edits on that subject. To save time, I searched only Sept. 15, Oct. 1, Oct. 15, Nov. 1, and Nov. 15. I selected those dates just because they were the beginnings and middles of the months in question, so they may be considered a random sample. I found:

Sept. 15: none

Oct. 1: none

Oct. 15: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]

Nov. 1: [13]

Nov. 15: [14][15] (?)[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38]

So on a typical day, it is likely for you to discuss en dashes, usually in several places simultaneously. I think that can reasonably be summarized as "discussing constantly". And that, along with denying obvious points like the one I'm making now, is why people who don't care about dashes are turning against you. It also helps explain why people have pretty much stopped trying to refute your opinion about dashes. Art LaPella (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes it has been a recent topic, but no it does not need to drag on forever. I would think it could be resolved in a month tops. But only if both sides are willing to discuss the issue, instead of simply opening RFC/U's and AN/I's every time the topic comes up, and instead of otherwise acting inappropriately. Also it needs wider community input, instead of being decided by just a dozen users. That is the purpose of the RM's, to elicit more input. Apteva (talk) 09:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

That's somewhat better: this time you at least recognized the problem. Art LaPella (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is the incivility at the MOS. The problem is not treating other editors with respect and dignity. The problem is not focusing on the content and focusing on the contributors. The problem is opening bogus RFC/U's and ANI's instead of discussing the issue, which is that hyphens and endashes are not currently correctly used in Wikipedia in three examples in the MOS. Fix those problems. I am not the problem. I am attempting to fix a problem. Apteva (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It's true you have treated the other editors with disrespect and have opened at least one bogus AN/I, which backfired against you, but the problem is that you continue to go counter to the consensus. Now claiming that all of your disruptive editing was a simple attempt to draw attention to this "error" does not make it non-disruptive; there are other venues for requesting comments from wider audiences if you disagree with the consensus in one area. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

If I thought the AN/I was bogus I would not have opened it. The editor in question had violated the sanctions of the Arbcom. That is not a bogus AN/I. I will remind everyone that I do not consider it disruptive to call attention to an error, and if anyone does, the correct process is to bring that to my attention on my talk page, not at the MOS talk page. The problem is incivility at the MOS and I am not one of those creating that incivility, nor did I fall into that pattern of behaviour at the MOS. The very description of it being disruptive was itself disruptive. To be perfectly clear, I treat everyone with complete respect. I do not treat false premises with respect. I focus on content, not on contributors, and that is exactly what needs to happen at the MOS. I do not agree that it can be said that there is a "consensus" to use endashes where hyphens are more appropriate. I do agree that approximately 10/12 editors agreed to do that, but that is out of hundreds of thousands of editors, who were not polled and whose view is unknown. While this is the second time that you have said "there are other venues", you yourself closed the RM at Talk:Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9#Requested move which to me is an entirely appropriate venue. You have suggested VPP, which I will pursue, but it would be appropriate to in the meantime leave the RM open. Apteva (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It's all symptoms of the same problem: you don't have to think it's bogus; this AN/I was bogus whether you think so or not. You don't have to consider your behavior to be disruptive in order for it to be disruptive. You don't have to deem the consensus style guidelines correct before we adhere to them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've struck my own name from the heading here, because Apteva's comments on it appear to be utterly irrelevant to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Response to Outside view by Mike Cline

All I can say is wow. I have been doing RCP and RM for quite a few years. I never think I have the right view, and the first thing that I did is extensively read through all of the pages at WP:TITLE to come up to speed with RM. When it comes to hyphens and dashes, though, they are trivial to show which is right. Apteva (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

That pretty much confirms Mike's observations. Dicklyon (talk) 06:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

What? In all the years I have been doing RM I have had two complaints. One because they did not want me to change their post for WP:RM, so I left it as is, and one, recently who complained because they did not understand that I was helping them, when they used the wrong section of WP:RM to request a move. What Mike said was "I don’t think Apteva understands that." However that could not be farther from the truth. I fully understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative venture and we use consensus decision making. That does not mean "we do not discuss things". Nor does it mean "we always get things right the first time". Hyphens and dashes can be trivially shown to a case where the MOS currently has errors. Fix them and move on. Am I always right? No. Am I right this time? Probably. Apteva (talk) 06:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Specifically, I meant that your "When it comes to hyphens and dashes, though, they are trivial to show which is right" confirms Mike's "Yet Apteva thinks and acts as if his position is always the right position. Within the WP editor community, consensus and the willingness to achieve consensus is a paramount objective. I don’t think Apteva understands that." Dicklyon (talk) 07:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussing whether to use hyphens or endashes is like discussing whether 2+3=5. There are certainly other possibilities, but none likely. Apteva (talk) 08:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Or to make it more obvious, like discussing whether 2377+3816=6192. Apteva (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Except that it's nothing like that at all, which everyone but you understands. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 00:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Response to Outside view by Wikid77

What relevance does this have to the issue at hand?

• Apteva disagrees with current consensus over dashes
• Apteva is acting disruptively as a response to this

Wikid77's view refers only to the disagreement. I don't happen to disagree with the views expressed by it. I couldn't even be said to disagree with Apteva.

However this RfC is about the second point, Apteva's refusal to behave cooperatively with the outcome of the guideline decision re hyphens. We do not (and I hope we never do) censure editors for disagreeing with style guides, but Apteva has gone past this. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not think Apteva has been disruptive, period. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Wikid77 also runs off the rails with this claim "the minority punctuation experts who disagree with the majority of other editors attempting to wp:OWN the wp:MOS guideline." People who agree with you are not necessarily experts, while people who disagree with you might be experts. It's trying to force the guideline to agree with the minority "experts" against consensus that closes in on WP:OWN violation. Keeping the guidelines reflecting the current consensus, even if done by us knuckle-dragging troglodyte mob members, is not a WP:OWN violation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm also confused by Wikid77's insistence that compounds like Italian-American be hyphenated and not dashed. Not because he's wrong but because no one is arguing that Italian-American should be dashed. It appears that Wikid77 doesn't actually understand the rule against which he's railing. Powers ^T 13:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The case has been "Mexican-American War" renamed with a dash; however, I hope no one starts an "Italian-American War" just to rename it with a dash! -Wikid77 (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

As I read it, W is simply suggesting that a fundamental principle of Wikipedia is to do things the way most people do - and oddly this was broken in writing the endash guideline. Apteva (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Bizarre – What is Wikid77 smoking? He has made up non-existent problems to argue against. I guess Apteva's anti-en-dash anti-MOS campaign has led him to think that people are pushing to use en dashes where hyphens would be correct???? And how can Enric Naval and Blueboar agree with him? Did they not read what he wrote? Why can't we discuss actual problems instead of making up stupid strawmen to complain about? Nobody has ever suggested using en dashes in hyphenated surnames or in "Italian-American person" or in other inappropriate ways that he suggests. Apteva's objections to en dashes are much more narrow, based on a theory that they should never appear as part of proper names, and that he doesn't like to see them in titles; and the problem is not his objections, but his disruptive behavior in repeated pushing those objections with no support. Wikid77's nonsense doesn't even count as support, since he doesn't even have a clue what the issues are. Dicklyon (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Please, Dicklyon, wp:NPA. When you continually insult an information scientist, such as myself, who earned straight A's in every literature class or German-language class taken, then other people will clearly see that I am right about the preferred use of hyphens for most terms. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what to think about Wikid77. This is just mind boggling: to Apteva, Wikid77 writes: "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." Someone needs to re-read WP:CONSENSUS. Powers ^T 02:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, LtPowers, please do re-read wp:CONSENSUS and note the word "compromise" as in the related diagram (File:Consensus_Flowchart.svg) which states to "Seek a compromise" with Apteva. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is a good question: "Why can't we discuss actual problems". The answer to that is that people who write such questions refuse to act civilly and refuse to actually discuss those problems. The issue that attracted me to the MOS was the bizarre idea of spelling airports with an endash. It turns out that there was an even more bizarre idea - spelling comets with an endash, which just becomes ludicrous when anyone tries to defend the practice. Many of our guidelines and policies are extremely well written - "even brilliant" to quote our FA standards. The MOS has degenerated into a mess. There is constant edit warring there and constant personal attacks. This is unacceptable - and I am not one of those doing either. Discuss the content, not the contributor. Apteva (talk) 07:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

It would probably be helpful to remind everyone of the first bubble in File:Consensus Flowchart.svg, which is "Previous consensus", not "Undecided". We do not use stare decisis, where once something is decided it is never revised. So bizarre as it may seem, yes it is correct that anyone anytime anywhere can make an edit and seek a new consensus. There is nothing in Wikipedia that is chiseled in stone. I like to point out that the WP:Five pillars has been edited over 1000 times. The names of each has not changed much, but they started out as:

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
• Wikipedia writes articles from a neutral point-of-view
• Wikipedia is free-content
• Wikipedia follows the writers' rules of engagement
• Wikipedia doesn't have firm rules

and are now:

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
• Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.
• Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute.
• Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner.
• Wikipedia does not have firm rules.

Most of the edits were minor explanatory changes. The fourth one is the one that has been modified the most, but never to change the meaning - treat others as you would like others to treat you, basically. But here we go again, attacking the messenger, instead of focusing on the message. WP:FOC Apteva (talk) 07:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Rather than just keep repeating all that as if we haven't already heard it, you might try addressing the other side's answer, which I believe is: they did discuss your issue; it was about September. They stopped discussing it when it became apparent you were just going to keep repeating yourself, disregarding the repeatedly demonstrated consensus against you. Whether that's right or wrong, that is their worldview. Nothing else you say (such as "Discuss the content" – yet again and again, or "anyone anytime anywhere can make an edit and seek a new consensus" – anytime except when the consensus against it has just been repeatedly demonstrated) will make sense to them without arguing from their own assumptions, not yours. Art LaPella (talk) 07:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

So go to MOS and argue for the changes that you want. If you provide supporting evidence from the mountain of grammatical and typographical RS out there, then you might even get a hearing. However what you're doing at present is to edit war this same point in article space instead. That, just by itself, is disruptive. It's still disruptive even if you turn out to be right over the underlying point.

This isn't 1947 Palestine. You don't get to act as a terrorist today and then become a respected statesman tomorrow because government changes and you'd then be on the winning side of the great dash vs hyphen conflict. On WP, we just don't like disruption, even if it turns out to have been correct in the long run. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Apteva has tried going to MOS and arguing for the changes. The proposal was rejected. Please don't tell Apteva to go back there again so soon after trying and failing. What we're trying to communicate to him or her is that his or her options are exhausted, at least in the short- and medium-terms. Powers ^T 22:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Right now the discussion is at VPP. I will let someone else take it to MOS, if the VPP discussion recommends a change. This is not something that affects only me. Apteva (talk) 06:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Apteva, you have the choice to continue arguing this question via the MOS route, or to give it up as a situation where you lost the argument (these happen, so get over it). What you don't have as an option is to continue the same argument, but via articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:MOS#Three corrections. Fix those, and everyone is happy. MOS folks tend to think that they need to decide everything and put it into the MOS. That is not true. English is a very rich language and has many options. I agree that correcting the MOS is the most important thing to do, but actually even more important than that (did anyone catch that) is correcting articles that misapply the MOS. The MOS does not tell us to misspell things, and when it does, it is correctly ignored. Contrary to opinion, I am an extremely careful and responsible editor and do not do stupid or inappropriate things, any more than is inevitable for all of us. As such this RFC/U is stupid, inappropriate, and a waste of everyone's time. There is a right and a wrong way to do everything, and this is not it. Apteva (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Yet again, you refuse to address the matter of this RFC and you drop back to parroting the same old complaint.

This RfC is not about the MOS. It's not about the dash/hyphen issue. It's about the separate issue that you keep dragging that issue into articles. We don't care about the rightness of your argument. We might possibly start to care if you stopped warring about it in articlespace. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It is never inappropriate to correct errors or to bring them up. The correct place to discuss an article is on the talk page of that article. If it is a long standing practice to spell something wrong, it is never wrong to bring up the correct spelling. If it comes up too many times that is what subpages are for, to localize the discussion. The correct way to reach consensus is to discuss the issue, and not the person bringing it up/commenting. This is consensus building 101. But seriously does this sound like any way to improve an encyclopedia: "We don't care about the rightness of your argument." If that is the opinion of anyone, I would suggest finding another area to work on, and let those who do care work on those/these articles. There is a right and a wrong way to do things, and this RFC/U is not the right way. The right way would have been to participate in mediation to determine the correct answer. Apteva (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

At least the word "never" is exaggerated, and sounds like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You do know you're accused of bringing this up too often (especially in article space), right? If it is a long standing practice to spell "cat" as "kat", it isn't wrong to bring up the correct spelling once, but "never"? 100 times? A googol times? At what point do we agree to spell it "kat" and get on with the rest of Wikipedia? Art LaPella (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

What I am suggesting is that no matter how many times that editor brings up spelling cat as kat is appropriate if that is what they think is correct, and if they can support that suggestion. If it is taking up too much space, what we do is set up a subpage, with a link, for spelling cat as kat, see [[talk:cat/kat]] or [[talk:cat/spelling]] and go back to editing. If they get a majority to support the change, an RM is opened and the page is/is not moved, based on the result. It is not a big deal. What is a big deal is to attack the editor bringing it up. That is not appropriate. Discuss the issue, not the proponent. WP tends not to prefer adding an RM constantly, but one now and then is appropriate to attract attention. For example, my current proposal is to have an RM once every six months on this particular issue. That to me can not be considered excessive. They only last a week, so no one is going to have to see it more than about 3.8% of the year. Calling the RM's disruptive and asking them to be speedy closed is absurd and inappropriate. Apteva (talk) 06:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

A subpage for hyphens versus dashes in proper names would probably be OK, assuming you'd be happy with just one link to it, even if everyone else is tired of discussing that issue further. But that isn't the behavior that brought us to this RfC. Proposing an RM every six months (not six hours) recognizes that there is indeed a repetition limit, inconsistent with absolute language like "never". So the only question is, just how long is that limit? Probably less often than every six months indefinitely, and probably less and less often the more often a contrary consensus is demonstrated. I can't think of any other individual who gets such a hearing every six months indefinitely, without more support from others. Art LaPella (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I started a list but it got incredibly long. And a lot of those have the wrong name anyway - French uses a hyphen more than we do in English, and a lot of those are airports in France that do not use either a hyphen or a dash in English. It is best though, to just agree to use common use - if something uses a hyphen more often than anything else, use a hyphen, instead of a made up rule that puts us at odds with the rest of the world. In my view a list is only needed if there is a moratorium on changes and a moratorium on discussion. Apteva (talk) 04:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that means that you have already tried something like your own subpage idea, with unsatisfying results. So even if your own subpage idea is acceptable to others, you wonder if we wouldn't really really really prefer you to continue to promote your proper names proposal day and night everywhere else, including the previous post? Oh well. Art LaPella (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it means I started a list, and found that it was abominably long. It is better to just make the corrections than to make a list. To make the corrections requires an agreement that the corrections are warranted. Apteva (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of Outside view by Hasteur

What makes the Mexican-American War vs. Mexican–American War a lame edit war is not because who cares which is better, even though that would also qualify, but because most reliable sources do not even use either of those, but instead call it the Mexican War, with roughly 90% using Mexican War, and of the 10% using either a hyphen or a dash about 98% use a hyphen, meaning that only about 0.2% of reliable references use the title that we ended up with after megabytes of discussion.

Most of that discussion about hyphens and dashes refers to spelling rules, rules of grammar and usage about when hyphens are used and when dashes are used; for example, it is a fact that hyphens can be used ubiquitously for any short horizontal line spaced roughly halfway up a character, such as a minus sign ("−"), a hyphen ("-"), an endash ("–"), and en emdash ("—"). Almost everyone uses a hyphen for all four of those, because it is on the keyboard and is easiest to enter. Meaning that sources that are not subject to editing and typesetting, like the web, are likely to be found to use a hyphen. Sources that are subject to editing and typesetting, such as most reliable sources, such as books, newspapers, etc., use their handy dandy favorite style guide, of which MOS referred to about three dozen in adopting our style guide, none of which say to use dashes in proper nouns, yet that is what we adopted (go figure). That is the danger of using synthesis - ending up with a sum of the parts that is not included in any of the parts.

All of our editors range in IQ from roughly 0 to 200, or at least around 40 to 160, with about 95% from 70 to 130, which to anyone with an IQ of 160 is about as dumb as a brick. Some are able to spell correctly, some not. Some are able to understand how to use punctuation correctly, some not. In my opinion, the MOS should not attempt to teach either spelling or punctuation, and should not be cited as a reason to change either. We have editors who are perfectly willing to corect errors that occur, either intentionally like that one or unintentionally as that one was originally (correct, not corect). But when someone thinks that they need to make a rule that everyone needs to follow, and thinks that if that rule is wrong no one should object, well they should really think about maybe they are working on the wrong website. Is it correct to change 1833-45 (with a hyphen) to 1833–45 (with an endash)? Yes. Is it annoying to have someone do that? Yes. Is it annoying to see 1833-45 (with a hyphen)? Yes. Is it annoying, and completely, entirely, unnecessary to discuss whether it should be one or the other? Absolutely! Apteva (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• I estimate the average IQ of Wikipedia editors at 140. Certainly over 100.
• If discussing 1833-45 versus 1833–45 is annoying, then why isn't eternally rearguing the Mexican–American War much more annoying? Art LaPella (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The way Britannica writes their articles is they pick an expert on the subject, probably someone in that IQ category, and have them write the article. The way WP works is anyone can edit, meaning we get all flavors of IQ. As to the average IQ of the most active editors, or those who contribute the most, it is certainly higher than 100 on average, but 140 and above leaves out over 99.6% of the population, so it is not likely it is that high. At 120 you at least have a pool of 9.1% of the population to work with, so that is far more realistic, and really, 120 is rightly considered quite smart - well within the top 10%. The mensa cut off is 130 or so, and no way are only mensa members editing wikipedia. And if it was an average of 140 there would be less editors complaining about "arguing about trivia with morons", but myself I welcome contributions from everyone, regardless of what grades they got in school, or even if they went to school. As to re-arguing Mexican-American War, yes, just move it to Mexican War and be done with it, but leaving it where it is is silly. Apteva (talk) 09:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Whatever. Anybody can enter a marathon too, but most people don't. To me Wikipedia talk pages do sound like Mensa or more so, complete with Mensa's silly arguments. Art LaPella (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I would have no way of knowing. Apteva (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
    • So your response to this RFC/U, raised as a direct result of your disruptive behaviour across articles, is to blame all the other editors for the problem, because we're too stupid to know better? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
      • That would not be a correct analysis. I was clearly not being disruptive, but it clearly is disruptive of some editors of wikipedia to come to the conclusion that was made last year that airports and comets would be more appropriately spelled with endashes than hyphens. This RFC/U is nothing but a tar and feathering or a witch hunt. It serves no purpose, and is completely inappropriate. The observation of the intelligence of wikipedia editors is simply a recognition that we are constrained to work with editors of all capabilities and backgrounds, and I have no problem with that whatsoever, but if that fact is recognized it helps to understand what we need to deal with every day. Apteva (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment on the Outside view by Blueboar

If anyone is saying "I didn't hear that consensus", it's Apteva. -sche (talk) 07:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. I am fully aware of the fact that a small number of editors made a tragic mistake in 2011, and that error needs to be corrected - the sooner the better. Apteva (talk) 05:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

That you continue to cast the current consensus as a tragic mistake that you, alone if need be, are here to save us from, that's the problem. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

That too, is inaccurate. There are other editors who have asked that MOS defer to common use. Doing that makes all of this go away, and is not an unrealistic approach. Bringing up problems is never a problem. Asking someone to not bring them up is a problem. Apteva (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Never a problem no matter how often and how many articles, or never a problem if confined to some subpage? Art LaPella (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

There you go again... -sche (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of Outside view by Neotarf

The problem is that the MOS is treated as a WP:Battleground, and while arbcom has had the wisdom to issue sanctions, and it is currently under a 1RR restriction, there needs to be a great deal of improvement in the civility there. I would not characterize my suggestions there as a disaster, but I would agree that all of them have been reverted and ignored, which simply is not appropriate. Apteva (talk) 06:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

After you continue to ignore the responses to your edits contrary to the consensus, some editors (including myself) would probably find it better to ignore your repetitions of those disruptions rather than continue to feed the disruption. That is a completely appropriate response to your activity. Your activity needs a great deal of improvement in civility and working with consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The funny thing is that consensus is one of the subjects that I am able to comment on as an expert on the subject, having more than twenty years of experience with the subject. As to civility, I do not recall ever treating any editor in an incivil manner, despite often being treated with incivility. Some of the responses to my edits completely miss the subject. I actually always take criticism as positive, and have done a lot of study of punctuation, such as the correct use of hyphens, and dashes. My sole purpose in editing wikipedia is to improve the respect of wikipedia. Comments like "Read any Wikipedia article on a topic you are expert in, and roll your eyes (and forget about trying to correct it, by the way)" though well deserved, are unacceptable. Apteva (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe the proper process for you to get the errors fixed in WP:MOS, rather than making a battle of it, would be to first direct your efforts to getting the Cambridge Guide to the English Language and The Penguin Dictionary of Proper Names to fix their errors. When they come out with new versions that don't contradict your theory, or perhaps even support it, then we can include those new versions among guides that we can consult in a new round of review and revision of the MOS, and you might get a consensus to get the error corrected at that time. While you work on that, can you please leave us in peace for a while? Dicklyon (talk) 07:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Apteva does have a kind of civility. But he doesn't demonstrate his expertise on consensus when he keeps saying things like this. If Apteva and Enric Naval by themselves are a consensus on that page move (not just on Kwami's move in February, but on moving it back now), then Apteva's expertise on consensus must be beyond mortal understanding. Art LaPella (talk) 07:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Motion to close

According to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing#Closing certified disputes, it looks like the only way to close this is to write a summary that we can agree on. I'll propose this one:

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.

Reworded this way by User:Hahc21 after most of the !votes were already registered:

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.

(this wording is OK if Apteva agrees, but the former is less dependent on that) Dicklyon (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Please enter simple numbered supports or opposes here, or add commentary in the discussion below. Dicklyon (talk) 03:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I have reworded the motion to explain better which is the outcome and avoid unnecessary words. I also removed the "Violation of this topic ban will be grounds for a block" as this is an RFC, not a topic ban request, and RFCs cannot act as such. Anyone can feel free to revert if my wording is inappropriate or make further changes if confusing. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Support motion to close

1. Dicklyon (talk) 03:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Noetica^Tea? 03:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC) And in agreement with -sche and others (see support below), I too prefer the statement as originally worded. Important to be decisive.
3. Binksternet (talk) 04:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
4. Enough is enough. Even Apteva supports a close, but for different reasons. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 04:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
5. — kwami (talk) 04:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
6. PaleAqua (talk) 04:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
7. Good summary. If Apteva continues with his behaviour, a request for arbitration is the way to go. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
8. Good summary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
9. Yes. Please stop the disruption. Tony (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
10. Wbm1058 (talk) 06:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
11. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
12. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
13. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
14. JHunterJ (talk) 12:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
15. Sympathetic Endorse. Based on the counter proposal and the decline of this closure proposal I expect to see this land at ArbCom within a few weeks as this just won't end. Hasteur (talk) 13:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
16. Powers ^T 13:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
17. Fylbecatulous talk 13:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
18. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
19. endorse, although if it really needs to be unanimous it seems a bit futile.AgnosticAphid talk 15:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

    [Note: At least voters before this point have supported the original wording; the alternative wording was added for consideration after AgnosticAphid's vote. Noetica^Tea? 09:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)]

20. — sparklism ^hey! 20:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
21. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
22. What bothers me most is Apteva's plainly false assertions of consensus. Art LaPella (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
23. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
24. Support the motion to close, but not the summary. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
25. Would prefer language that made it more clear that Apteva is being "advised" by the above editors, but the basic idea is clear enough. Support. Neotarf (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
26. Original version or something more like it. The rewording doesn't indicate clearly enough that this is about disruption. If some variant of the word "disruptive" isn't included, I can't endorse this. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 00:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
27. I agree with the initial proposal to close ("Apteva's persistent ...[etc]... for arbitration"); I prefer it to the reworded proposal ("Apteva's personal ...[etc]... Arbitration Committee"). -sche (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
28. I prefer the initial proposal; it is disruptive to persist with the same line of argument when a large majority disagrees. Oculi (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose motion to close

1. Inaccurate and inappropriate. Apteva (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Strongly oppose as unfounded claims of disruption. In fact, the whole nature of the RFC/Apteva has functioned as a wp:Attack page as further wp:Wikihounding and cyberbullying of User:Apteva to instill a fear to keep quiet about the pro-dash warping of Wikipedia's wp:MOS style guide, where clearly there was no valid consensus to push en-dash characters into names where hyphens have been vastly preferred as the wp:COMMONNAME for centuries, per policy wp:TITLE which overrides mere guideline wp:MOS. Any user has the right to propose to move/rename each and every article on Wikipedia to a new title, even if the rename involves the discussion of hyphens/dashes and attempts to push a pro-dash guideline as if it could easily override a long-standing policy to use hyphens as vastly preferred in the real world for centuries (re: "hyphenated Americans"). -Wikid77 (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
3. This begins to look like an attempt by a group of "MOS enthusiasts" to suppress contrary views. To say that it's "cyberbullying" is a bit strong, but it does begin to feel like that to me. I don't agree with everything that Apteva has written, and s/he has sometimes not engaged with the debate as constructively as I would have liked, but the closure comes close to saying that continuing to disagree with the current MOS is of itself disruptive. All MOS guidance must be subject to continuous review and improvement, in exactly the same way as the rest of Wikipedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
4. Needs to be closed and summarized by an uninvolved third party. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of motion to close

Can RFCs result in binding sanctions? --Rschen7754 08:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think they can, but they (and the named party's response to them) can certainly form evidence to a future WP:AN etc. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

No, they can't. I have reworded the motion to explain better which is the outcome and avoid unnecessary words. I also removed the "Violation of this topic ban will be grounds for a block" as this is an RFC, not a topic ban request, and RFCs cannot act as such. Anyone can feel free to revert if my wording is inappropriate or make further changes if confusing. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Community sanctions are not that unusual, but of course only admins can enforce; "binding" is unclear here; that's why I mentioned possible recourse on violation, which to ask for a block or request arbitration; a block can be given by an admin who sees the consensus that the behavior is disruptive. The closing instructions don't really say unanimous, and do speak of there being a clear consensus. They're a bit contradictory in mentioning "all participants", but I don't think the clear consensus will be in doubt here:

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. In case a wording has not been agreed upon, the RfC/U should be closed as if it was being closed due to inactivity (or closed due to other dispute resolution). ... If the consensus favours closing by agreement with a summary, the RfC/U can be closed...

• Although supporting the close, I'd like to see the final motion make more distinction between actions at MOS and in articlespace. I see Apteva's actions in articlespace as disruptive and topic-ban worthy, with a block being imminent if there's no change. However I don't think we should muzzle discussion of MOS changes. He'd have to be clearly and separately disruptive there to justify that. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

  Apteva has been clearly and separately disruptive there, between the "I didn't hear that" with every explanation of the consensus as well as the new WP-space essays created to undermine the MOS. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

  Those proposals strengthen the MOS, instead of weakening the MOS. The MOS is not a part of TITLE policy, and if there are any punctuation issues that need to be addressed, WP:TPUN is the place to put them. Objecting to it because it does not have goofy spellings for comets is not a reason to object. There was never consensus for the goofy spellings in the MOS, and yet that was ignored. Apteva (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Question: Doesn't Apteva have to agree if this isn't to be closed as inactive? Or am I misreading the RfCU closure process page? I agree that this page will be helpful in future processes.AgnosticAphid talk 16:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

"In case a wording has not been agreed upon, the RfC/U should be closed as if it was being closed due to inactivity" clearly applies. Close it as inactive. Other dispute resolution will be needed, but as everyone knows there is a proposed community ban on discussing or editing hyphens/dashes for one year. We can pursue that DR in 2014. In the meantime, there are about 4 million articles that require immediate attention. Last checked, some of them had not achieved FA or even GA status, and that is a big problem. Not adding 3 pixels where they do not belong is not. To me, removing those 3 pixels where they do not belong is a big deal, but I can certainly wait and bring it up at another time. Apteva (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of RFC/U is to gain some agreement (ie more fecking "consensus") between parties, such that they can both agree to some onward progress. If one party is intransigent, then of course that's impossible. The RFC would thus grind to a halt and eventually close as 'inactive', or maybe there's a quicker route to 'irreconcilable'. Then, if future behaviour is still an issue, and behaviour is still not going to change, it falls back to basic disruption and the WP:AN block or topic ban mechanism (which ought to be based on the disruptive effects of behaviour after this time, not really that beforehand). It's Apteva's call. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that.AgnosticAphid talk 19:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no. "WP:AN block or topic ban mechanism" is not the right way. The right way is to follow this with an ArbCom case request. Apteva's conduct is not ground enough to enforce a block. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd be most surprised if ArbCom would touch this with a bargepole, rather than throwing it straight back to WP:AN as simple disruption. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

the closure comes close to saying that continuing to disagree with the current MOS is of itself disruptive—No, Peter, Apteva does so much more than continue to disagree with the current MOS; there's plenty on the main page about this. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed; it's not "continuing to disagree", it's "continuing to push one's disagreement to the point of disruption". Powers ^T 22:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there is a difference between continuing to argue at the MOS talk page – which I would not like to see blocked by the RfC here – and deliberate edits/reversions to articles which are against the advice of the MOS. Speaking personally, there are things in the MOS I strongly disagree with and will join in arguing about whenever they are raised (e.g. more capitalization of the common names of organisms than just birds, simplifying advice about hyphens and dashes) but editors, including Apteva, should not act against the MOS – that way leads to anarchy and endless edit wars. However, the closure motion does not make a sharp distinction between the two cases and is not the way to deal with edit warring. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It goes way beyond edit warring. Apteva is very careful to obey the rules on that front. The main problem is continual forum shopping and repeated raising of the same discredited points time after time after time. Whatever you think of the merits of capitalization for organism names (which I don't see any reason for), at least you don't go to the MOS several times a year specifically to find a new way to get your preference written into the policy. There are limits, even on discussion pages, on how much disagreement is reasonable, and Apteva has surpassed it. Powers ^T 12:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

If it doesn't include the word "disruption" (or "disruptive", whatever), I can't endorse this. The entire basis of the RFC/U is WP:Disruptive editing. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 01:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

While I support the original version, I wouldn't mind a version with wording that still allowed Apteva the limited leeway to !vote / comment in requests opened by other editors as suggested in the desired outcome section of the RFC/U, instead of a complete topic ban. PaleAqua (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Motion to close (2)

Whereas this RFC/U was opened solely as a wp:Point it is hereby closed.
[Apteva wrote that.–Noetica]

Apteva has brought up a good point - comets and airports are not normally named with endashes, but instead use hyphens. No further action is warranted. (added later) [Here is the funny thing, Apteva is one of the few editors who knows the difference between a hyphen and an endash, and is capable of helping correct mistakes where warranted, and is encouraged to help fix those errors.]

[Apteva wrote that.–Noetica]

Support motion to close (2)

1. Apteva (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Strongly support motion to close as mere wp:POINTy RFC/U. In fact, User:Apteva should be commended for such neutral, low-key responses to misguided claims of "disruption" when instead, Apteva even underwent a self-imposed 30-day topic ban, which has allowed other long-term users, such as myself (and Apteva) the time to realize the pro-dash pushing of en dashes, to replace hyphens, is a violation of policy wp:TITLE to use the wp:COMMONNAME where hyphens are used in the preponderance of wp:RS reliable sources. Unfortunately, the whole nature of the RFC/Apteva has functioned as a wp:Attack page as further wp:Wikihounding and cyberbullying of User:Apteva to instill a fear to keep quiet (else "face ArbCom") about the pro-dash warping of Wikipedia's wp:MOS style guide, where clearly there was no valid consensus to push en-dash characters into names where hyphens have been vastly preferred as the wp:COMMONNAME for centuries, per policy wp:TITLE which overrides mere guideline wp:MOS. Instead, the emerging consensus is that dashes are not significant to force against the long-term use of hyphens, and many users do not want a guideline which falsely claims dashes are preferred when actually they are not worth the bother to many users. Also, any user has the right to propose to move/rename each and every article on Wikipedia to a new title, even if the rename involves the discussion of hyphens/dashes and questioning the push for a pro-dash guideline as if it could easily override a long-standing policy to use hyphens as vastly preferred in the real world for centuries, as with term "hyphenated Americans" which dates to the 1800s as evidence that hyphens are used to join terms such as "Mexican-American War"; just as Mexican-Americans do not come from "Mexican-America" but rather have heritage from both Mexico and America, there is (likewise) no problem with naming a war between Mexico and America as the "Mexican-American War" with a hyphen, not an en dash. It has been a false claim that 2 names in a partnership must be noted by endash, whereas in a marriage would use a hyphen, when historically for 125 years, the 1887 Michelson-Morley Experiment has noted the hyphenated names of two scientists in partnership and not an experimental marriage. It is important to understand the proper use of a dash as well as balderdash. Hopefully, User:Apteva will be properly commended for the polite perseverance to reduce the pro-dash pushing of dashes into titles where they have not been for centuries. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose motion to close (2)

1. This tells me Apteva sees nothing wrong or disruptive in what he has been doing, and if this motion is supported, he will continue doing the same until he manages to get blocked by ANI or Arbcom. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 04:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

   Not a chance. I am here to help, not to get blocked. I know the rules and I follow them. Were a topic ban be imposed it would be appealed as stupid and unnecessary. Apteva (talk) 05:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

2. At this point, there is a clear outcome against Apteva's points of view. I'd recommend him to follow the already established consensus and drop the stick. Otherwise, ArbCom will be busy soon. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
3. This alternative motion is inappropriate and confusing. Tony (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
4. Just another layer in the obfuscation, especially the refactoring to blur lines between competing close motions. And Apteva's failure to sign posts that support Apteva! (Not a good look, if this comes under scrutiny at ArbCom.) Noetica^Tea? 06:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
5. I haven't had time to fully examine everything, but seeing the comments written by multiple experienced editors regarding Apteva are concerning. I would support a topic ban and/or escalation to ArbCom; still mulling over which would be more appropriate. I would be happy to comment at ArbCom about the RFB issue. --Rschen7754 08:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

   Addendum: seeing the (in my opinion, ill-founded) opposition here, I'd say ArbCom. --Rschen7754 19:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

6. We're all wrong, we're all too stupid, and we've learned nothing from Apteva's careful explanation in his platform at RfC. Block everyone. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
7. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
8. More evidence for the preceding Motion to Close. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
9. Non-starter. Sweeps the entire RfC/U under the rug. Hasteur (talk) 13:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
10. "Inaccurate and inappropriate." Powers ^T 13:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
11. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
12. Fylbecatulous talk 13:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
13. Dicklyon (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
14. Perhaps if Apteva had minimally acknowledged the views of others I could have lived with a non-meaningful close to this RFC. I wasn't around to be frustrated by the ineffectiveness of the earlier 30 day self-ban. But really there has to be some acknowledgement of the disruption problem and this certainly isn't it.AgnosticAphid talk 16:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

    Strange name for exasperation. It is an exasperation for someone to pop bubbles, it is a disruption for editors to create RFC/U's when what was needed is a sentence on my talk page. Contrary to opinion I respond well to suggestion. Apteva (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

15. No. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
16. No., per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
17. -sche (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
18. Wrong venue. This section is for discussion of Apteva's actions, not a forum for yet another presentation of Apteva's theory. Neotarf (talk) 00:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
19. What Neotarf said (and MOS is not necessarily bound to specialist external conventions when they contradict the general rules of English grammar or even simply a consensus here that special exceptions are too difficult for editors to remember). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 00:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of motion to close (2)

• I have renamed this section "Alternative motion to close (by Apteva)". I have also marked where Apteva has written in support of Apteva, but not signed. EDITORS: please assist in keeping things clear and readable on this talkpage. Noetica^Tea? 04:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
• Editors are reminded to use neutral subject headings. Renamed to an appropriate heading. Apteva (talk) 05:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
• I have renamed it to fit the appropiate standards users are used to. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for doing that. I have supplied an anchor so that the 36 posts I made on participants' talkpages link to the correct section. Let's keep monitoring the page to check that everything is transparent and workable. Noetica^Tea? 06:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
    • You're very welcome. If you ever need help, ping me on my talk. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Excellent! I've just changed the subsection headers also (see the need for unique headers, at WP:MOS). Too easy for editors to post in the wrong place, otherwise. Unfortunately Apteva appears to want the waters to be muddied. I'm sure most of us want clarity and transparency as we bring all this to its conclusion. Noetica^Tea? 06:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Good. Don't worry. And I am sure editors won't post in the wrong place ;) Also, as I said above, his best option is to accept consensus and let this horse die alone. I am sure he wants to help, and I am sure he is and will be a productive editor. We just, sometimes, are not ready to see that our ways are not accepted by community, and that's when we need fellow users to help us realize that. I hope not to see Apteva at the Arbitration Committee anytime soon as much as I hope this RFC to be a learning experience for him. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
          • "We just, sometimes, are not ready to see that our ways are not accepted by community" Very true, but in this case it is being counterproductive in inappropriately naming things with dashes that take hyphens that is not accepted by the community. If anyone does not want to see this go to arbcom, they will not support the first motion, as I am not sure of any interim appeal procedure. This RFC is a farce and nothing but an attempt to disrupt wikipedia to make a point, and serves no purpose other than that. Apteva (talk) 08:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
            • Apteva, the point isn't if en dahes or hyphens are correct, but what consensus is, and going against consensus is not productive. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 15:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
              • A review of the discussion reveals that I am not the only editor who opposed spelling a comet with a dash. There never was a consensus, and to treat is as a consensus now is false. To accept that the MOS has anything to do with choosing titles is false, and the sentence that says so needs to be removed, and the entire section replaced with "Article titles are determined by WP:Article titles policy." That is a consensus that everyone can agree on. Apteva (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
• Any user, including User:Apteva, has the right to request an alternate closure: In fact, User:Apteva should be commended for such neutral, low-key responses to misguided claims of "disruption" when instead, Apteva even underwent a self-imposed 30-day topic ban, which has allowed other long-term users, such as myself (and Apteva) the time to realize the pro-dash pushing of en dashes, to replace hyphens, is a violation of policy wp:TITLE to use the wp:COMMONNAME where hyphens are used in the preponderance of wp:RS reliable sources. Meanwhile, the whole nature of the RFC/Apteva has functioned as a wp:Attack page as further wp:Wikihounding and cyberbullying of User:Apteva to instill a fear to keep quiet (else "face ArbCom") about the pro-dash warping of Wikipedia's wp:MOS style guide, where clearly there was no valid consensus to push en-dash characters into names where hyphens have been vastly preferred as the wp:COMMONNAME for centuries, per policy wp:TITLE which overrides mere guideline wp:MOS. Instead, the emerging consensus is that dashes are not significant to force against the long-term use of hyphens, and many users do not want a guideline which falsely claims dashes are preferred when actually they are not worth the bother to many users. Also, any user has the right to propose to move/rename each and every article on Wikipedia to a new title, even if the rename involves the discussion of hyphens/dashes and questioning the push for a pro-dash guideline as if it could easily circumvent a long-standing policy to use hyphens as vastly preferred in the real world for centuries, as with term "hyphenated Americans" which dates to the 1800s as evidence that hyphens are used to join terms such as "Mexican-American War"; just as Mexican-Americans do not originate from "Mexican-America" but rather have heritage from both Mexico and America, there is (similarly) no problem with naming a war between Mexico and America as the "Mexican-American War" with a hyphen, not an en dash as if the hyphen would somehow indicate blending Mexico into the U.S. It has been a false claim that 2 names in a partnership must be noted by endash, whereas in a marriage would use a hyphen, when historically for 125 years, the 1887 Michelson-Morley Experiment has noted the names of two scientists in partnership and not an experimental marriage. It is important to understand the proper use of a dash versus balderdash. In the future, User:Apteva should be properly commended for the polite perseverance to reduce the pro-dash pushing of dashes into titles where they have not been for centuries. In the mean time, Apteva has the right to request an alternate closure of this RFC/U, and should not be further insulted, nor denigrated, for expressing opinions. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same editor? " neutral, low-key responses" are not how I'd describe his actions. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, neutral and low-key responses. Those are trademarks of my responses. Apteva (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Keyboard warning — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Your responses, Apteva, are typically the diametric opposite of neutral and low-key. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 23:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Motion to close (3)

Apteva has brought up a very good point... there are times when WP:COMMONNAME indicates that a hyphen should be used over an en-dash. However, his persistent pushing of this valid point has reached the stage of disruption. Apteva will refrain from any further advocating at the MOS page. He may, however, participate in hyphen/dash related article talk page discussions, and in RM discussions about specific article titles.

That said, Insistence on a blind adherence to the MOS can be just as disruptive as persistent pushing to change it. The rest of us must accept that occasional exceptions to the MOS do exist. If WP:COMMONNAME (or one of the other provisions set out at WP:Article titles) indicates a title that does not follow the MOS, then an exception to the MOS can and should be made for that specific article title. Making an exception to any policy or guideline (in a specific case) does not negate the policy or guideline... nor does it require changing the policy or guideline to explicitly allow for exceptions. It simply requires acceptance that there are times when we should set the rules aside in that specific situation. Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Support motion to close (3)

1. Blueboar (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

#LittleBen (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose motion to close (3)

1. Oppose motion to label User:Apteva as "disruptive". -Wikid77 (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Oppose because the motion does not note that Apteva's "good point" was brought up in a disruptive manner. If it were just about comet names, I'd be neutral, but any "praise" given to Apteva must be balanced, per WP:FRINGE. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
3. Oppose because, as Arthur Rubin notes, this entirely misses the point – this RFC\U is not at all about en dashes and hyphens, it is entirely about Apteva's disruptive editing. Even if he were correct on all the facts (which he's clearly not), he should be topic-banned anyway for disruption. No editor has a magic right to browbeat the living F out of everyone for months on end just because they happen to be correct about some piece of trivia. That is what this RFC/U is about. Whether his underlying point about comet names is "good" or not is utterly irrelevant to this RFC/U, and off-topic here. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 00:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose because the hallmark of Apteva's disruption is its diversity and ingenuity. It is at WT:MOS, at VP forums, at ANI, at RM discussions, at user talkpages, and so on. Decisive sanctions are needed, or we'll have to visit the issue yet again, later. Editors have been extraordinarily indulgent; but damage has been done already, and the time for patience is over. Noetica^Tea? 09:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
5. JHunterJ (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
6. Oppose per Arthur Rubin, SMcCandlish and Noetica. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
7. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
8. Fylbecatulous talk 02:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of motion to close (3)

I just do not think that User:Apteva has been "disruptive" but rather persistent to stop the wp:advocacy in pro-dash pushing of en dashes into titles where hyphens have been used for centuries, such as the 1887 "Michelson-Morley Experiment" as a hyphenated name to indicate partnership between two scientists, rather than the hyphen used over 125 years as somehow indicating those two scientists had an experimental marriage, or claiming "Mexican-American War" to mean a melding between Mexico and American more than with a separating dash, or some other balderdash. Instead, I think the wp:Wikihounding of Apteva is an attempt at wp:Righting great wrongs to retro-force the world to rename its centuries-old titles with dashes rather than the hyphens used for over 120 years. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

In my view, WP:TITLE governs the substance of the article title (should it be Comet C/1995 O1 or Comet Hale–Bopp?) and WP:MOS covers the formatting and punctuation of those chosen titles (should it be Comet Hale-Bopp or Comet Hale–Bopp?). I can't say I'm much of an MOS expert, but it seems like it would raise problems to have the rule about dashes or hyphens in the article title (COMMONNAME) be different than the rule for dashes or hyphens in the article body (MOS), yet if we then change the MOS to say, "always defer to COMMONNAME," it honestly seems not really that different than just getting rid of the MOS. I'm not just saying that to be alarmist. Anyways, as I said in my "outside view," it seems like we should be able to have a reasonable discussion about this but Apteva is not really helping, so I agree with your motion to that extent. AgnosticAphid talk 19:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

"WP:TITLE governs the substance of the article title[s]", but it derives all of its style advice from MOS. You and several other parties keep missing this crucial fact. If it were not true, article titles and texts would widely diverge all over the encyclopedia, but they do not. QED. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 23:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to be picky, but the "style" of the title is not really the "substance of the article title". I think the style is more the "formatting and punctuation of th[e] chosen title[]" which I agreed are governed by the MOS. Unless you mean that, say, COMMONNAME is derived from the MOS, which I would be interested to discuss if so. AgnosticAphid talk 00:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

COMMONNAME as a whole is not derived from MOS, of course; COMMONNAME simply defers to MOS on style matters, like punctuation rules. I actually misunderstood your post; I'm so used to Apteva engaging in the WP:Specialist style fallacy that I thought you were, too. Now that I read more carefully, instead of skimming, I see you are in indeed talking about the underlying facts – the substance – not the style. Sorry for the confusion. You and I have actually been making the same argument. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 00:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

It appears to be a MOS fallacy that WP:COMMONNAME defers to WP:MOS in any way. It has been suggested by one of those most experienced with titles that the sentence at MOS suggesting that be deleted. Specifically: "MoS applies to all parts of an article, including the title. See especially punctuation, below. (The policy page Wikipedia:Article titles does not determine punctuation.)" But actually, the entire section on titles should just say "Article titles are determined by the WP:Article titles policy." There is absolutely no reason to confuse the issue. The idea that if we had to determine correct titles for everything development of the encyclopedia would grind to a halt is completely false. Apteva (talk) 09:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you not actually read WP:COMMONNAME then? It doesn't really need to "defer", as it's not prescriptive; it just says that we tend to choose more common names over official names. It says nothing about how to style those common names; and neither says anything about halting progress while working it out. Dicklyon (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The crux of the problem is that in the MOS the false assumption was made, which was not agreed to, that since dashes are used to convey meaning in sentences they should be used to convey meaning in proper nouns. This is false for two reasons, one English does not make any sense. Idioms and proper nouns just need to be memorized along with their meaning, and second, wikipedia follows common usage. If it is common use to end sentences with commas, that is what wikipedia would do. It is not common usage to use dashes in proper nouns by a huge margin, and MOS needs to recognize that. But seriously, we do not need to refer to 142 pages to determine article titles. (The MOS has 71 pages, WP:TITLE has 71 pages) We do need to put everything we do need to know into the page naming conventions. Apteva (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It is a straw argument to say that anyone has ever suggested getting rid of the MOS. What has been suggested is two things, one, the MOS is about the body of the article. If the title of the article is Foo-Foo, then that is used in the body, not Foo!Foo, or Foo↔Foo, or Foo~Foo, or any other punctuation. There are in fact articles, though, that do appropriately use a different spelling or punctuation of the title in the article - for example well known topics that have alternative names. The second suggestion is that the MOS not try to teach spelling, punctuation, or good writing and that all of that portion of the MOS be moved to essays, and expanded. Who knows, some of our editors might be able to learn to write FAs. Apteva (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I would say (1) like I said I'm not an MOS expert but at a minimum it would be strange to have the punctuation for Foo-Foo be different in the body than the title of the article and (2) I fail to see how "the MOS not try to teach spelling, punctuation, or good writing and ... all of that portion of the MOS be moved to essays" is different than "getting rid of the MOS". AgnosticAphid talk 21:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

And where exactly would this go?[39] Add to that the layout, See also before references, External links after references. Notice that the MOS does style titles - ones that need to be italicized. It does not style titles to change their spelling, capitalization, or punctuation. Apteva (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Agree that, "That said, Insistence on a blind adherence to the MOS can be just as disruptive as persistent pushing to change it. The rest of us must accept that occasional exceptions to the MOS do exist. If WP:COMMONNAME (or one of the other provisions set out at WP:Article titles) indicates a title that does not follow the MOS, then an exception to the MOS can and should be made for that specific article title. Making an exception to any policy or guideline (in a specific case) does not negate the policy or guideline... nor does it require changing the policy or guideline to explicitly allow for exceptions. It simply requires acceptance that there are times when we should set the rules aside in that specific situation". It is not productive to bully and harass new editors who don't know about MOS, or to insist that MOS trumps "commonsense". For example: capitalization (or not) of "president" in different ways within an article, depending on how it is used, looks inconsistent to many people, so there will always be people trying to "fix" the capitalization to make it consistent. LittleBen (talk) 07:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• Sometimes it is better to choose the simplest way of doing things, regardless of rules, rather than have perpetual churn/warring. LittleBen (talk) 07:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• There will always be cases where it doesn't really matter. Stub articles that nobody reads don't have any effect on the perceived quality of Wikipedia. LittleBen (talk) 07:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• There will (unfortunately) always be zealots who insist that Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is superior—so it doesn't need to follow real-world commonsense rules, or the usage of an encyclopedia like Britannica, but can invent its own rules. I think that this is a big problem. LittleBen (talk) 07:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

As others have said, this isn't really the place to discuss the merits of having a prescriptive MOS, it's to discuss whether Apteva is being disruptive. Anyway, if people mistakenly violate the MOS out of ignorance, editors can revert the violation, explain the MOS rule, and hopefully explain why the MOS has the rule it does. Then hopefully the new editor will not make the mistake again. If they do, though, there are wikignomes to fix the issue; there's no need to be disagreeable. But Apteva knows full well he or she is being ham-handed and that others disagree – Apteva thinks he or she is saving us all from ourselves, but it's just disruptive to run around to multiple fora making the same edits you know others disagree with.AgnosticAphid talk 08:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

[Noetica^Tea? 09:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Apteva's comment on SMcCandlish's oppose vote, moved to the discussion subsection provided for the purpose:]

It is my personal view that if someone has something to offer, a correction, for example, that is important to bring up. There are many outstanding disputes in Wikipedia. Most we basically agree to disagree - for example both British English and Am English are welcome, and each respects the other. I can think of more than one dispute that continued for multiple years. While that is a long time, I know of another dispute that took 30 years to resolve, and only was resolved when the underlying issue became moot, and of course everyone knows about how long the hundred years war lasted. While we need to obtain community consensus (this is about 100,000 editors) we also do not want to detract from doing anything else, which is why small committees, such as those that worked on the MOS - but that committee did not operate properly, and produced a failed result as a result. Had that committee listened to the opposition and fixed the problems we would not be having this discussion, and I would have no complaints about the naming of airports and comets with non-standard dashes, because they would all instead use the more common hyphen. As an encyclopedia, our first goal is accurate and correct information, properly referenced and without copyright violations. If someone thinks the Earth is flat, or the Moon is made of green cheese, they need to find a reliable source that says that, and we find an appropriate place to put it, instead of using that for the first sentence of Moon. When it comes to naming of articles, it is completely appropriate to hold to a view of the correct spelling - and follow procedure to make that move - if it is uncontroversial, just make the move - if it is potentially controversial, discuss it, at the project page, at the talk page, etc., and allow everyone to contribute to the discussion. But seriously, stifling anyone does not help. No one is controverting that someone can find a book or paper somewhere that says Hale-Bopp is spelled with a dash, but we do not decide titles that way - we choose either the official spelling or the most common spelling - both of which are the same - Hale-Bopp (with a hyphen). It really is not rocket science. Apteva (talk) 02:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Asking the 110,000 active editors: While there are over 110,000 registered editors who post 1 edit every month (over 9,000 post 25 edits), we should try to get a random sample of opinions as to the number of active editors who do not see dashes as significant to force into articles. The prior problem has been a select group of a few dozen editors who, as a gang (or perhaps wp:TAGTEAM), declared a self-imposed consensus (even ignoring editors who actively disagreed at the time) and thereby, dictated artificial rules about forcing dashes where over 94% of reliable sources do not use them. A general "rule of thumb" is to ask enough people so as to have at least 1,001 responses (for 3% margin of error in sampling), and with such a large count, then the influence of pushing or intimidating users could be reduced to a tolerable level. Considering the logistics of collecting 1,001 opinions, then such a survey could last over 3 months, so we need a special page to allow for long-term posting of responses. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"Bringing something up" and waging an incessant months-long campaign of forum shopping are two different things. There has been more than one long-running dispute at MOS, but none generated by a single tendentious combatant. Offline 30-year issues have nothing to do with WP or with this RFC/U. There is no "100,000 editors" benchmark for establishing consensus; there are not even 100,000 regularly active registered editors. Please read WP:CONSENSUS. You really need to stop lecturing experienced editors about how WP works, when you clearly have not even absorbed many of the fundamentals about that. MOS is not edited by a committee - there is no barrier to entry, and no limit on the number of editors. It's edited just like every other page here, by a self-selecting, ever-changing group of editors who simply care enough to be involved collegially. [Aside: The word is collegial; I keep seeing people use collegiate, but that's a completely different word. Collegiate refers to colleges; collegial refers to colleagues.] To the extent you are pursuing a conspiracy theory (and many of your posts indicate that you are), please see WP:CABAL. There is no consensus that there are any "problems" with regard to dashes at MOS that need to be "fixed".

Punctuation is not an issue of underlying facts, so your references to pseudoscience are fallacious. It's simply a style matter. See WP:SSF for the difference. WP:TITLE derives its style rules from WP:MOS; if it did not, tens of thousands of articles would have text that disagreed with the title, but this is not the case; QED. The fact of how astronomers in astronomy journals prefer to punctuate has nothing to do with WP and its in-house style. Many science fields eschew en dashes entirely, because computer keyboards do not have an en dash key, and researchers have better things to do that fuss over typography. Many Wikipedians don't have anything better to do, and care about it a lot. Do not confuse the fact that the correct name of Hale–Bopp is not Bopp–Hale (a factual matter) with some assumption that the expedient typography of astronomers means that a hyphen is mandatory even outside astronomy publications (again, see WP:SSF); that's a style matter, not an underlying facts matter. Astronomy journal style guides have no authority over WP, and WP's MOS has no authority over journals. Airports: They get spelled with hyphens a lot because keyboards don't have en dash keys, and airport administrators are not grammarians. It's really that simple. You are confusing spelling (e.g. Shakespeare vs. Shakspur) with punctuation, which is a style matter under WP:MOS, not a WP:COMMONNAME matter. You can probably find over 1 million reliable sources that do not put a space between measure and unit (3cm), but that does not mean that WP should change MOS to stop recommend spacing it (3 cm); that's a style matter, and we have our own in-house style.

En dashes are not controversial on WP (they were accepted quite readily after a plenty long-enough period of discussion, and only you and a handful of other editors (most of whom have posted above; I think there's a grand total of four) cares to campaign against them; Wikipedians at large do not consider dashes an issue and go about editing peacefully. You by yourself do not magically make it controversial (WP:CONSENSUS does not require unanimity, and see also WP:FILIBUSTER and WP:LISTEN). Bringing it up again and again and again on every talk page you can think of is forum shopping. "Stifling"? That's like claiming that preventing you from blowing a trumpet at people's windows at midnight is "censorship". Reining in disruptive behavior does help, if the culprit does little any more but disrupt page after page after page. You simply need to stay away from this issue, and probably other style issues, and go back to productive article editing. You do not seem to have the collegial temperament for style guide work, because you continually assert you are right, no matter what, and have demonstrated a clear pattern of unwillingness to compromise or even recognize other viewpoints.

You're right, it's not rocket science, so why is it that you seem unable to understand that you do not have a consensus against en dashes (including in astronomy and airport articles) and are not going to magically get it by browbeating people in a long series of different talk pages?

— SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 00:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem. Using dashes in airports and comets makes no sense whatsoever. I brought it up, and was stonewalled by some and others agreed. That does not reflect on whether or not it makes sense, and is solely a reflection on Wikipedia. Per the proposed moratorium, there is no point in pursuing it further at the present time. I do hope though, that those who are pushing dashes have learned that there is no consensus to use them in airports and comets, but that if the standard of common usage was used, there would be no disagreement. The purpose of an RFC/U is not to say gee this editor is horrible, but to work out with that editor a better way of editing. It is my hope that everyone will agree that title decides title and MOS decides content within an article, using the spelling of the title that was determined by title. Keep it simple, and everyone is happy. As to spaces between 3 and cm, suggesting that WP has a "house style" is counterproductive. What we do have is suggestions for layout and style in the MOS. That is why it is a guideline and not a policy, and why it is not called WP:Rules of style, and one of the five pillars, of which the fifth one is that WP has no firm rules. While I do a lot of style fixes, I really do not put a very high priority on adding a space between the 3 and cm in 3cm or removing it from 3 %. Consistency within an article is far more important than consistency between articles. Like I said before, I would be happy if I could get editors to capitalize first words of sentences and end them with periods. At this point I am going to have to consider this RFC/U closed. I thank everyone for all of the suggestions, and I am pretty sure I can find about 4 million articles that are in immediate need of attention (I am subtracting the less than 4,000 FAs). Apteva (talk) 06:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

It is simple; you're the one trying to complicate it by adding magically special exceptions for which you do not have consensus. Your understanding of WP:CONSENSUS is poor. Your argument boils down to a belief that a few specialists who want to impose style from astronomy journals should trump the general site-wide consensus at MOS about the difference between dashes and hyphens in English prose written for a general encyclopedia audience. As a matter of WP policy, it doesn't work that way. Listen to your own wording, if you like: The matter "is solely a reflection on Wikipedia". Fine, if you want to believe that, then believe it: The WP community disagrees with you, and you think that's ignorant, but so it goes. Observe the fact that it has happened, take a deep breath to calm your feelings about then, then drop it and move on. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 03:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Concur this RFC/U should be considered closed, as no significant evidence of disruption: Independent of prior discussions about hyphens/dashes, I have noted how User:Apteva's actions do not show "disruption" but should be commended for spreading the word about improper forcing of dashes into hyphenated wp:COMMONNAME cases, so that other long-term editors, such as myself, could clearly see there is no real consensus to use dashes as "styled hyphens" where, instead, many editors do not even think dashes are significant to be forced into text, and over 55% are supporting a one-year moratorium to no longer change hyphens-to-dashes nor discuss the difference. Also, Apteva's polite vigilance in various wp:RM discussions has helped to reveal that some people think a hyphenated official name with 2 people can be dashed, but not an official name of 2 married people, as though the world has exclusively reserved the right to retain official names in marriages but not other officially recorded names with hyphens used by 95% of sources. The added complexity has become a clear resistance against "Keep it simple". Plus then telling people who do not consent to such counter-productive rules, that they "do not have consensus" to use policy wp:COMMONNAME (or favor wp:ACCESS to simple keyboard keys) but must ignore policies in favor of false-consensus, pro-dash wp:MOS guideline recommendations, that whole line of argument reeks of cyberbullying to try to force people to accept a pro-dash wp:advocacy else be labeled, on any talk-page, as being "disruptive". I just do not see the need for more discussion, except perhaps to list other users who have been hounded or wp:Blocked because they disliked the pro-dash push to force dashes where hyphens, or slashes (or colons), are more commonly used in the vast preponderance of wp:RS reliable sources (99% do not use dash in "hand-eye coordination"). Hence, I too concur this RFC/U should be considered closed as having no basis. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• As the above editor has been recognized as disruptive over citation formats (for the purpose of rendering speed over style guidelines), his recognition of disruption in regard style guidelines should be questioned. As for Apteva being "polite" — all I can say is <redacted>. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
• Agreed with Arthur Rubin. Wikid77 pronouncing things non-disruptive is a bit of an absurdity. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 03:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• I concur strongly with Arthur Rubin and SMcCandlish's comments. Any comments by Wikid77 on this matter should be considered in the light of his past behavior. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Widening your attacks: Wait, I thought this was a WP:Attack_page against User:Apteva only, but now you are treating it as a wp:ATTACK page against anyone who disagrees with you, by claiming my opinions as "absurdity". Wow, that just proves everything that Apteva was saying is absolutely true. You guys just defeated yourselves by proving yourselves wrong by those antics. You just lost the debate, by your own misguided actions. That is why this RFC/U is now considered closed, per wp:POINT and wp:ATTACK. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of Outside view by Wbm1058

Outside view by Wbm1058 (moved from Project page)

Another first-time RfC/U participant here. I generally prefer to focus on improving the encyclopedia and stay away from this type of discussion, but when Apteva copied from my user page without providing attribution to start a new Wikipedia:Hyphens and dashes essay (see his first edit), well I was motivated to look to see if I could find a discussion like this one. I'm not surprised that I found it. "it's probably not a good idea to use hyphen bullets for a list such as this one!"—and it's probably not a good idea to copy someone's work and re-post it as if it were your own. Folks, I'm sorry my efforts in this area have been used as a tool of disruption, though I'm flattered that he used my work. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC) P.S. It was Wikipedia Signpost that called my attention to the existence of Wikipedia:Hyphens and dashes. – Wbm1058 (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Evidently Wbm did not click edit and see that instead of "without providing attribution", it says "<!--Source https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AWbm1058&diff=467811755&oldid=423955484 --> so yes I did provide attribution. Apteva (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed (although that would be easy to miss.) Art LaPella (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

But much easier to find than the recommended method of using the edit summary. Apteva (talk) 01:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did miss that. And indeed not easier to find when you're expecting to find a link in the edit summary or a {{copied}} template on the talk page. If your method is even mentioned at WP:CWW, well, I missed it. I apologize and have moved my comments off the project page. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

And Apteva missed that I wrote "This is not an exhaustive list.," and presented it as if there were only eight dash variants. There are actually more. There is a more complete treatment in the Dash article. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Added "at least eight". If you want it in an edit summary that is trivial to do. Apteva (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a rather unusual way of attributing. Edit summaries are more often consulted than he seems to suggest. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 02:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Motion to close (4)

Motion withdrawn in favor of proposal below. dci | TALK 02:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Apteva's persistent editing regarding dashes and endashes has countered Wikipedia's Manual of Style; furthermore, his involvement with page moves has resulted in disruption and unnecessary discussion. Given that consensus is definitely against the viewpoint propagated by Apteva, he will cease his attempts to insert dashes into article titles, and will discontinue posting move reviews. Apteva will not be banned from discussing this topic or from advocating his opinions, but further discussions instigated by him in forums such as WT:MoS that do so will be subject to speedy closing. Abuse of page moves, requests to move, or move reviews may result in temporary to indefinite blocks depending on the amount or severity of changes. dci | TALK 19:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC) Support motion to close (4) Oppose motion to close (4) NoeticaTea? 23:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC) Not helpful to complicate things for minimal return, at this late stage. The new motion is too indefinite and too weak, in the face of determined and multifarious disruption. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 03:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC) JHunterJ (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Unnecessary complication. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Armbrust The Homunculus 23:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC) A huge amount of editors' time and energy has already been expended in trying to limit Apteva's damage to multiple areas of WP. Much better for Apteva to concentrate on creating content. Neotarf (talk) 05:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Correction. The damage being done is done by editors who falsely propose that MOS has control of article titles, and falsely have been changing hyphens to dashes where dashes do not belong, in violation of wikipedia policy. Thinking that I might ever or have ever done "damage to multiple areas of WP" is totally preposterous. My soul goal is to fix errors and create useful content. Apteva (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC) This is a bad argument, and doesn't help your cause. Of course the Manual of Style covers the style of article titles; how could it possibly not? The choice of a hyphen or an en-dash in a title is a style issue, not an issue of substance, such as whether an article about an organism should be at the common English name or the scientific name, or which variant of English to choose for the title when they differ. I have supported (and will continue to support) your right to continue discussing what the appropriate style guidance on hyphens vs. en-dashes should be. Legitimate arguments in this discussion include, but are not limited to, what reputable style guides say, what authoritative bodies specify for their specialist subjects, what other publications comparable to Wikipedia do, whether the MOS guidance is confused, contradictory or too complex for most editors to follow, etc. But to argue that the style of article titles is somehow independent of other style guidance doesn't make sense. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I see no credibility to the suggestion that the MOS applies to titles. As suggested, that sentence that says it does needs to be removed. If there are any punctuation issues, a page can certainly be added to the naming guidelines to specify how to choose punctuation, but I am certain that it would not include the goofy rules used by MOS in choosing punctuation for titles. Here are the hard facts. Wikipedia is controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation. They wrote a book based on Wikipedia in 2011 and used hyphens even though WP had used an endash (incorrectly) in the title since 2008 for one of the items. Editors make decisions by consensus and there is nothing that anyone can do about it (other than WMF, which does not get involved in editorial disputes). So while I know the correct spelling for Seattle-Tacoma International Airport and comet Hale-Bopp, there is absolutely nothing that can be done to correct it under the current goofy situation that exists today. I can only hope that will change soon. Until it changes, there are more other things that need fixed than I or any one person can hope to get to. So all I can do for now is build consensus and leave it on my to do list. I would be happy to discuss why the MOS does not apply to titles with anyone who is interested. Apteva (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Remember that even if "MOS does not apply to titles", WP:TITLE states that the comet should be punctuated according to this recent but thus far uncontested edit. So it's inaccurate to suggest your problem is limited to the MOS. Art LaPella (talk) 05:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC) That is a totally idiotic example of common usage. Apteva (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Just remember it's a totally idiotic policy at worst. Art LaPella (talk) 07:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Fylbecatulous talk 02:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Discussion of motion to close (4) That's far too complicated and wishy-washy, and would actually have negative unintended consequences (e.g. Apteva might well have a good reason for filing a move review about an article in one of his areas of interest, without it having anything to do with hyphens or other style matters). The original motion to close, which already has more support than all the others combined, is sufficient. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 03:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Motion to close (5)

Since the signers want blood, I pronounce a pox on both of your houses. Withdrawn Hasteur (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Since none of the current proposals for closure are meeting the agreement, I propose the following closure Several highly endorsed viewpoints and counter-viewpoints have been addressed. No agreement between filers of RfC and Subject on ways to move forward. Apteva has been advised by a subset of the en.WP community regarding the reception of Apteva's efforts. Can we agree to this? It lances this boil and potentially allows us to move forward from this. Granted, the next step could be an immediate opening of AN/RfArb proceedings, but it would be wise to allow Apteva time to take onboard the viewpoints expressed here. Pending significant objection, I intend to close with the above rationale in 72 hours. Hasteur (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Support motion to close (5) Endorse—I don't think there's much else to do here in the context of an RFC/U. I'd note the behavior doesn't seem to have changed despite plenty of "time to take onboard the viewpoints expressed here". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Endorse. Time to be done with this one; Apteva needs to be reminded that consensus is against him, but overly harsh sanctions ought to be avoided. dci | TALK 02:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Endorse. I reckon most of those who are likely to comment have already commented. We just need a consensus to close this, which we seem to have. The 'agree to disagree' format allows us to do this, and move on. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 03:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Endorse Whatever happens next, it isn't happening here. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Oppose motion to close (5) Oppose. A solid majority of experienced editors, including several admins, is very clear about what the community ought to expect of Apteva. This new proposal negates all of that agreement, and offers no prospect of relief from the months of disruption the community has had to endure. Expect an approach at WP:AN soon, requesting a robust topic ban founded on the unequivocal evidence presented and examined in the RFC/U, and here on its talkpage. NoeticaTea? 03:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Um, Motion 1 has 28 !votes: what more evidence of consensus could we want. I oppose this diversion. Tony (talk) 07:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC) No. There are 28 editors who say they want the disruption stopped (motion 1) but Apteva refuses to stop (motion 2). So we all just walk away and say the matter is closed? I think not. We came here to stop the disruption. If there is no closure here, we must seek it elsewhere. Neotarf (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC) We also ready have an overwhelming consensus above. If that can't close it, this won't either. Dicklyon (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Oppose. The first motion to close is definitive, with 28 vs 4 !votes. Binksternet (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Oppose per Binksternet Armbrust The Homunculus 13:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Discussion of motion to close (5) Editors: Please do not attempt to give your own motion to close undue prominence. A fair and uniform structure has been settled on; please respect it. NoeticaTea? 03:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Comment. Hasteur, please note discussion of this RFC/U at WP:AN. There is no provision for anyone to close this RFC without agreement from all parties. The nearest we have to that (and it is nearly total agreement) is for the original motion to close. See above. If there are irregularities here, expect them to be presented to ArbCom. NoeticaTea? 03:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC) This discussion and the matter at hand are tiresome; I apologize for my own part in prolonging this, and sincerely hope that it is wrapped up for good. Basically, here are my thoughts – Apteva's editing has been disruptive and has resulted in wasteful discussion here and elsewhere. He should be reprimanded for this and should be prevented from continuing these edits. However, he need not be threatened with blocks and bans. In my view, a simple "discussion regarding this subject and propagated by this user will be speedily closed" should suffice. dci | TALK 03:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Don't modify other's comments without their permission. Filers aren't going to get Apteva to agree, so my proposal is as best as it's going to get. So kindly UNDO IT. Hasteur (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC) To whom is this directed at? dci | TALK 03:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC) It's directed at Apteva, but we kept edit conflicting. Hasteur (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Noetica, I close RfC/U's fairly frequently. Please don't talk to me about how they get closed. Hasteur (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Hasteur, I am going by the best advice I could get, at WP:AN. And I checked the closing guidelines. No one wants a fuss here. We all want an end to fuss. If, somehow, you are able to close an RFC/U against the guidelines and against the available advice at WP:AN, why did you ignore the overwhelming weight of opinion from editors intimately aware of the situation, exposed publicly above for open examination? (To say nothing of the weight of evidence in the RFC/U itself.) Do you really think that your motion to close will attract more support than that first motion to close? As I reluctantly say, it may have to go to ArbCom after all, if established procedures are not followed. Meanwhile, be so good as to explain your take on this in the discussion I have opened at WP:AN. I for one would like to see the responses to your explanation. NoeticaTea? 04:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Noetica, I don't think there's anything else that can happen at this RFC/U; can you explain why we shouldn't shut it down now? That's all this motion does, it doesn't water anything down, it just admits that this RFC/U on its own won't result in any remedies or resolution and lets us move on. At least, that is how I read it. I mean, obviously the first motion has overwhelming support, but that does not lead to an RFC/U closure, right? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Sure Erik, I understand your point of view. But in the rather confusing guidelines for closing these things, I do not see any warrant for in effect (or at least, in appearance) undoing all the preceding motions and their statements with a much, much weaker one that completely fails to reflect the overwhelming weight of opinion expressed earlier. It now seems to me that there is no need to close this RFC/U. In fact though, when a request is made for a topic ban at WP:AN, another provision for closure can be invoked: "[Option] 2. The dispute proceeds to another method of dispute resolution, such as mediation or arbitration." So why not just do that? The present motion is absurdly weak, and misrepresents the state of opinion. Trust me: it will not get unanimous support. Nor should it! NoeticaTea? 08:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Comment. The opinion of two admins at AN is that the RFC/U cannot be closed. According to the instructions, there are 3 ways to close an RFC/U: 1) The dispute is stopped. This dispute is not stopped. Even now the disruption continues with a slow edit war over comets [40] and with Apteva linking to a bogus pet proposal as if it was policy. [41] 2) The dispute proceeds to dispute resolution. But the RFC/U cannot be closed until the case has been accepted and opened. 3) Participants are in agreement. The guideline for closure is not clear about how many editors have to agree, but the opinion of the admins consulted is that "...the parties and/or participants to the dispute agree". So even though there is a consensus, there is not agreement of the parties, specifically, Apteva disputes the summary agreed to by the other 28 editors. The RFC/U cannot be closed. So now it looks like someone needs to figure out how to proceed with further dispute resolution. Neotarf (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC) What I proposed was not a motion to close, but a summary closure listing what has been noted and giving advice that has the potential to be ignored. Its a finessing of the "Inactivity" rules as it's obvious Apteva is not going to change their viewpoint and that we will not receive unanimity. The proceedings can be used to demonstrate the "Lower Forms of DR have been attempted" requirement, but no sanctions will be applied from here. I question you Noetica if you are not as disruptive with your calls for sanctions on Apteva. I've closed several RfC/U's with this style and method of closure (in fact, I'd say that most do end up this way). Hasteur (talk) 13:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Hasteur: My calls are prompted by the outcome of long discussion here, from the refusal of the subject of the RFC/U to shift his position even slightly, and from his or her continued disruption in several forums even after a strong consensus has emerged here against it. From your post above, from your recent extraordinary remarks at WP:AN, and from the particular wording of your proposed closing statement, it is now clear: you have become involved. Therefore you are no longer an uninvolved editor in a position to deal administratively with this RFC/U. No one need doubt your good intentions; but several of us have doubted whether the way you have acted on them is correct according to established procedure, and advice obtained at WP:AN. I request that you take no more administrative part here, beyond the refactoring and reminding that others do – as ordinary editors concerned to maintain due process and to assist in achieving a consensual outcome. NoeticaTea? 22:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) Hasteur, if you have a response for Noetica, I would suggest you place it under one of his comments, not under mine. If you think trying to stop this nonsense is "disruptive", I would suggest you take your complaint against the 28 editors who signed Option 1 to the appropriate forum. Neotarf (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.