User talk:Apteva/Archive 5

Working out the details at Today's article for improvement
The RFC for TAFI is nearing it's conclusion, and it's time to hammer out the details over at the project's talk page. There are several details of the project that would do well with wider input and participation, such as the article nomination and selection process, the amount and type of articles displayed, the implementation on the main page and other things. I would like to invite you to comment there if you continue to be interested in TAFI's development. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 02:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!
I didn't get back here before my previous comment was archived (sorry!), but whatever you did to the AANP Request move has done the trick; it now appears in the correct time slot on the RM page, and with just the move request showing. So, thanks for doing that! Moonraker12 (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Violating sanction
If you're testing the limits of your topic ban, I think you crossed it in these comments. Dicklyon (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I have asked the closer to clarify for you: User_talk:Seraphimblade. See my note at WP:AN. Dicklyon (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I presume that this does not preclude other admins from simply blocking you, but I have not asked for that. Dicklyon (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Raised at WP:AN#Topic ban, what topic ban? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (per correction to link) Links move. No need to correct this to something that is just going to change again. Apteva (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have no intention of either skirting or breaking the topic ban, and repeatedly asked for clarification. Apteva (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

There was also this edit, on a discussion of MOS punctuation styling that took place on the WT:TITLE page. —Neotarf (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That was already discussed, but FYI the place to bring that up is here not there (see post about sticking to the topic). Per "I don't see anything here that violates the topic ban", there is no point in bringing it up again. Apteva (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Notification: I have asked for a block at AN/I. Dicklyon (talk) 06:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome again to our planet
I realize now that you are from an advanced civilization and have come to impart wisdom to Planet Earth. Although citizens of Earth might appear very backward, in comparison to your world of peaceful collaboration, I want to confirm that many here, living in a hidden realm, have been enlightened by others from your planet when they visited here many centuries ago. In particular, they contacted the Greek philosopher Plato (known to you by the ancient name " Platon ") and his contemporary Archimedes, who died during the Siege of Syracuse, despite orders that he should not be harmed. Also, Eratosthenes of Alexandria, on the Mediterranean coast of Ancient Egypt, and Nikola Tesla of Budapest were influenced by your civilization. The descendents of their students sometimes come here as "IP" editors (which is a code name meaning "Intellectually Profound" but disguised as "Internet Protocol"). Unfortunately, many years ago, there was an incident, on "The Day the Earth Stood Still" and a powerful alien robot taught many Earthlings to nuke anything or anyone around them, whom they did not like. When meeting such hostile inhabitants of this planet, the code phrase which is meant to stop their plan of total world anhilation is, "Klaatu barada nikto". From what we have heard, any attempts to talk with them using terms of rational thinking will fail. I hope this planet can survive until you accomplish your mission here. Anyway, again, welcome to our planet and may peace be with you. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a cookbook! Dicklyon (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Appeal
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Apteva (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Ah, alright! --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Your qoute
I put a quote from you on my user page. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Remembering AaronSw
With the recent suicide of Aaron Swartz (User:AaronSw) at age 26, I wonder if we could do more to explain clinical depression and help provide more information about bullying. So many related articles are missing, which could answer some common concerns, and reduce fears. He joined as "AaronSw" in 2003, at age 16, and with his borderline computer activities, his prior girlfriend noted the federal investigation had been running 5 years, to face 35 years in prison as threatened by so-called "bully" prosecutors. I am wondering if we could expand articles to clarify such concerns:
 * wp:Human services - as an essay to track adding more articles
 * Warning signs of suicide - a major missing article
 * first time offender - to explain leniency with court proceedings
 * reduction in sentencing - to reduce fears of exaggerated years

Because Aaron was a major player in the SOPA conflict, I wonder if he had been prosecuted as a chance to "send a message" to lax Internet users, and that would have led to extra bullying, as seems to happen often. I know WP is "not a forum" and "not therapy" but when teenagers grow with Wikipedia, it would be great if they knew WP had more answers about suicide, police brutality, and "rights of the accused". Things to ponder. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This does get into WP:NOT. But although I did mention writing something about cyberbullying, not right now. The United States is the only civilized [sic] country that regularly gives sentences of longer than two years. I say sic because when Gandhi was asked what they thought about Western civilization, the answer was "It would be a good idea." Nothing has changed since, although Europe has become more civilized. Apteva (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have created "Warning signs of suicide" as an initial version (4 sources), so teenagers have something there. For prisons, I am finding sources about "prison culture" (or "~subculture") aka the "convict code" and the information seems to be vast about prisons in the U.S. or Poland or Russia, for example. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Amended wp:ARC additional statements
Just as a note for future reference in the "avoid-letter-k" case, I added the issue of "imagined consensus" to clarify the notion that so-called "disruption by denying consensus" pre-supposes that such consensus is real, rather than actually an imagined override of a policy by suggested guidelines. I noted the claimed consensus as a false premise, when amending my section: ARCdif-231. While there were already 8 declines, perhaps the case, after closure, could be reviewed to re-open the crippling restrictions to avoid part of the keyboard. I think the issue of "imagined consensus" is critical, as a potential landmark decision because editor actions are judged relative to Arbcom's interpretation of policies, guidelines and pillars. Also, I really see the "avoid-letter-k" issue as a landmark decision to limit just how bizarre can a topic-ban be relative to common-sense wp:ACCESS (editor is "hereby topic-banned from using numerals" due to disruptive actions about wp:MOSNUM?). While Arbcom might avoid content disputes, it could with enough savvy define limits of consensus-crying and keyboard-bans. Perhaps if re-opened, the avoid-letter-k analogy could be explored as to how outrageous can topic-bans become. Meanwhile, Arbcom had a history of ban-them-all and let the next conflict reset "consensus" but there are legal experts at Arbcom now. Perhaps there need to be qualification tests to see if people know what "policy" means. I guess the reason you talked with so many people is because the whole situation would escalate into a "wiki-trial of the century" as to how far should people be allowed to demand silence about forcing trivial text as mandatory-or-else. It is almost unbelievable how few saw the overall problem, in retrospect. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration declined
This is a courtesy notice that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Feel free to see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 22:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * still lingering issues
 * have the principal parties draft a request for arbitration collaboratively and agree on what, exactly, the Committee can help solve, and bring the result of that discussion back here
 * accessibility, see five pillars discussion
 * some of those involved in these disputes might want to try and sort out among themselves what the issues are here and what they think needs dealing with, and maybe present that for community discussion (if previous discussions were closed early before consensus formed, that would be a concern), and if no consensus can be found there, then see if an arbitration case would help sort things out

They do not need to be marked biased, simply struck Oppose etc. Oppose None of the votes in an RFC/U count, as the purpose there is to work with the editor to help them find a better way of editing. In the RFC/U in question, nothing was accomplished because nothing of that sort took place (I had already agreed to a voluntary moratorium). In an ensuing (not concurrent as was the case) AN, only editor actions that took place after the RFC/U are relevant (in my case none, making the AN a complete farce, as well as the rejected appeal). Procedurally the AN needs to wait a week after the RFC/U to see if the glue has set. If there are any immediate infractions, an AN action is not needed, and are normally handled with short blocks to stop them. After a week of this the AN becomes a formality, but is based solely on the editors behavior after the RFC/U. So the whole process in this case was off from day one, and clearly simply a case of attempting to disrupt WP to make a point (something that will never stop, evidently), and succeeding, considering that now one editor has a keyboard with one less key to play with and dozens of editors wasted countless hours hammering that concession through – to the laughing stock of all. All we can do is roll our eyes. Obviously I could have dropped the issue long ago, but doing so is pointless and not to anyone's benefit. Lesson to everyone: If you see something that needs to be fixed, fix it. If it does not need to be fixed, quit insisting that it does (that is why the MOS is a guideline and Title is a policy). Oh well. Some day someone will figure this out.{{diff| Apteva (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that what failed was the approach of the request. You requested a ban lifting, and obviously, the Committee was not willing to do that. I think that a broader scope should be taken if a next case request will be filed. Regards. — ΛΧΣ  21  04:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hopefully the issue will be resolved soon. Right now all I can do is go back to AN in a while. It was amusing to have Arbcom say they agree with me (ironically)... Obviously the most important thing is to regain full use of the keyboard. Apteva (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We also need to mark wp:AN !votes as "involved", due to the illusion that 28 "neutral" editors agree, rather than just tallying opponents who wp:VOTESTACK an incident. There is also a need for a "jury of peers" rather than "jury of sneers" (imagine if a courtroom juror asked, "Is there a way this wp:DISRUPTIVE, wp:TE, wp:TAGTEAM, wp:FORUMSHOP defendant could be herded into a corner?"). I think a group of "28" might be reduced to perhaps 3 opinions left, but the problem is the time needed to screen 28 involvements and strike wp:INSULTING remarks. For most admins, vote-stacking is difficult to detect or reject. The whole process is a mess which needs rules of evidence to reject dogpiling with rumors, and I have suggested getting neutral helpers who would want to assist AN/I talks to verify claims, then pre-mark each tallied opinion of involved editors as "BIASED" such as " Support&#160;&#91;BIASED] " and then an admin might skip such !votes as 28 dwindles to 3. It is totally bizarre to have class-action plaintiffs on the jury, or charge witnesses for the same offenses, and expect any objective decisions. By contrast, imagine the excitement of having a case decided by an impartial jury (anonymous or wp:SOCK names), and a policy at AN/I to request such a decision. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

In conclusion

 * For anyone interested, this little bit of nonsense, which could have been handled with a single sentence, or even two words ("back off", as I had already agreed to a temporary moratorium), occupied countless editors, 73,000 words, and half a million bytes of text. All in an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, as was pointed out at the very beginning. Note to all, civility is a policy. See the discussion on how to deal with incivility. Requests for comment/Civility enforcement Trying to get someone banned just because you have a different viewpoint on a valid point they are making is not appropriate ("I pretty much share Apteva's position"), and does nothing other than waste everyone's time ("I had hoped to start a new article today, but instead find myself once again using all my wiki-time for damage control from a user that was supposed to be topic banned already" totally misses the point, but is an example of how everyone had better things to do than waste time harassing someone who had already agreed to a moratorium). Apteva (talk) 08:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Simple English proposal at the Pump
Hello,

As one of the participants in the original Village Pump discussion about getting the Simple Wiki to the top of the Languages, you are invited to participate in the reopened discussion of the same. Your feedback will be appreciated.

Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Avoiding major conflict areas
I am seeing further evidence that major conflict sessions are out-of-control, to beware getting into the middle, but rather join discussions from the side with limited wording. In past months, I had warned Jimbo that when example articles were mentioned at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales, then others would target them for "tampering" of some sort. Today, the example was "Tornado preparedness" now sent to AfD, after I created it last year following massive tornado outbreaks in the U.S. Also noted for removal is new article "Warning signs of suicide" which could be improved, but deletion is being suggested as the main path. In the past, a targeted article was "Mimi Macpherson" (Elle's sister) or several other articles (or templates) mentioned in the disputes at Jimbo's talk-page. They often become targeted. Shifting the focus to other areas, I was enlightened how several ArbCom members had tediously noted they agreed with you on issues, and saw serious problems, but every single one could do nothing to protect a user who says the right things even though evidence of wikihounding and false consensus was clearly documented in the case. That is clear evidence that the present time is not the "Zeitgeist" for progress, when even ArbCom members see the truth and cannot turn themselves around and go hop-hop-hop. It isn't that hard to decide, "Sorry, no hounding of people who state sourced facts" with polite wording, done, next case. This is still the era of IP-address professors, adding information in the shadows as ever-changing IP users, and avoiding usernames dragged through the mud while people say you are right but they cannot do anything to help you. I guess when we see groups of users say, "Enough is enough, stop the badgering" then it might be safe to stand in major disputes, or mention example articles in a hot-topic forum. Otherwise, we need to watch the pulse of the intelligentsia and keep conversations more low-key, or supportive from the sidelines. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * People work on whatever they are aware of. There are many editors who watch Jimbo's talk page (astonishingly there are editors who watch my talk page). So bringing up an article makes it subject to review. It is just human nature to click on any link offered, and the editor instinct kicks in to do the rest – either gee this is a great article, lets take it to FA, or what, an article about that? Lets ax it, and anything in between. With 4 million articles it is not just the ones created today that can be AfD'd. Some slip by and last for years before they get noticed, but also an article that might be deleted one year gets kept another. Apteva (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement
Per Noetica's, I have filed an Arbitration enforcement request to determine if your edit to WP:AT violates the discretionary sanctions on that article. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Too many examples in WP:COMMONNAME
Thanks for the link... what I see there is the beginning of a discussion that quickly got sidetracked into a long discussion about hyphens and dashes and the MOS. In other words, there was no consensus reached on shortening the list.

I don't really mind the idea of shortening it... but let's get an uncluttered consensus, and some discussion on which examples should stay and which should be removed. I'll start a new talk page discussion. Blueboar (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BRD I will bring it up again, but there is no such thing as not being able to walk and chew gum at the same time. The proposal was clear, and there was no opposition, so it was implemented. Apteva (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Village pump discussion close
I've undone this extremely bold close, which you neglected to either sign or accompany with an edit summary. In future, if you're going to go around clerking heated threads, at least do others the courtesy of identifying both who is doing the closing and why. Not that it would have made this particular close, eleven whole minutes from the last comment, any more appropriate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You are more of a glutten for punishment that I am. That discussion was long over and had just degenerated into a shouting match that had nothing to do with the topic of the thread. But I have no objections to your revert. Apteva (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Ban violation continuation
I would have thought that after User:Seraphimblade's clarification of your ban on 10 Jan here, you would not continue your anti-MOS campaign at WT:TITLE as you did here. Dicklyon (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not the least bit anti-MOS and to suggest that I am borders on slander. I fully respect all of our guidelines and policies. Apteva (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have requested an enforcement action here. Dicklyon (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning
This relates to the recent AE request concerning you. You should take particular care not to edit these policy pages in a way that may be deemed not to reflect community consensus.  Sandstein  21:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

A suggestion
Apteva, many of us have attempted to seek moderation in the dispute sequence you've been involved in. At this point, consensus regarding the issues with which you are concerned has been confirmed by the community. Further attempts, whether by you or by other editors involved in these issues, to engage in behaviors considered tendentious or unhelpful to an encyclopedic community will doubtlessly be met with harsher sanctions, such as those imposed today. Although there are more than a few in the community who don't disagree with your viewpoints, we respect consensus, which, although occasionally challenged by determined minorities of editors, enables us to maintain a somewhat stable environment here.

I strongly encourage you to cease the behaviors that have gotten you into trouble in recent days, and to desist from the patterns that have instigated this troubled process. Despite the negative attention you've gotten lately, you are a valued contributor in various content areas. I think you ought to focus your efforts on working in the article namespace on article development itself, and should disengage entirely from areas that have caused controversy. Thanks, dci  &#124;  TALK   03:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

When your 2-week block expires, I suggest you don't go around the areas you're topic-banned from. GoodDay (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Bizarre block
I just now see you were quietly blocked, some 4 hours ago, without notice, for a first-time "non-punishment" of 2 weeks, but the edit-banner reports this:
 * "00:25, 29 January 2013 Basalisk (talk | contribs) blocked Apteva (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (Disruptive editing: Violation of topic ban)"

As you know, typically, admins would post a notice of a block, here, on this talk-page within minutes of the block, to offer "how to request an unblock" for other admins to note, and perhaps "48 hours" might be the length of a first-time block (not 2 weeks). However, the whole WP system has deteriorated into a sprawling mess, faster than you could alert people to fix all the run-away problems. I just noticed that article main-space had been violated by creating the December-2011 redirect "Manual of Style (punctuation)" to WP:MOS as a main article title, as if the entire world thinks Wikipedia invented style manuals. When you tried to properly replace the bogus, browser-breaking redirect "wp:Manual of Style (article titles)" with the correct, direct link to "wp:Manual of Style" then someone claimed that improvement was a problem, despite guidelines which state to use direct page titles, not redirects, for such links. No wonder few people seem to be reading the MOS, when it is not even clearly linked by the correct title, but rather redirected with peculiar pseudo-titles. And then, I noticed the wp:MOS has a warning that policy "wp:Article_titles does not determine punctuation of titles" even though the policy page clearly states rules of title punctuation ("avoid quotation marks in titles" etc.). Then they site-banned 95,000-edit User:Youreallycan (aka ~Off2riorob) for one insulting comment(?). All just totally bizarre. The whole WP system is spiraling downward, as people create non-notable articles which disguise resumes or fringe medical care (for years!) as being part of those articles. So, please do not be upset with these unusual admins or people who do not understand that wp:Consensus requires the general consent of people working together, not telling several long-term editors that they "do not have consensus" to talk about fixing problems. I suspect there are just so many rampant problems, as Wikipedia is being flooded with crap articles, plus conflict-of-interest editing and adverts in lede sections, that the entire system is out of control at this point. No wonder people are reporting record-high levels of problem backlogs, as good editors are being overwhelmed by the rest. It is just a huge mess. I appreciate you trying to help, but how much can one talented person be asked to sacrifice under these conditions. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

 * Archiving reset to 14 days. -Wikid77 15:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for violation of your topic ban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Basa lisk inspect damage⁄berate 06:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The above of course is laughable if it was not so funny. My edits are constructive. The edits of the tar and feather mob that brought the RFC/U, the AN, the ANI, the AE, and the AN are the ones that are unproductive, per both WP:FOC and WP:NPA. I had already agreed to a voluntary moratorium, so no topic ban was needed. I did not violate the terms of the topic ban, but was construed to have. The appropriate action is a warning, not a block, and a hatting of the conversation as was done, and reverting it would more appropriately have been handled by blocking whoever had reverted it, instead of warning the editor who had correctly done the hatting. No further action was necessary. Wikipedia has a serious problem, but I am not the problem. The problem is allowing incivility to go unheeded. "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor." Most of us have forgotten that sentence. Apteva (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously in an edit-war over punctuation? That sort of stuff is irrelevant junk - it is of no interest whatsoever to the viewing public. So it's not worth edit-warring and getting blocked for it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No. But it would be a violation of the topic ban to be much more specific. Apteva (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, there was something about types of dashes. I can give you my full assurance that no one in the reading public gives a hoot in hades about types of dashes. What we care about is article content, i.e. facts. When I want to learn something, I turn to wikipedia first, and the type of dashes or hyphens used is of absolutely no relevance. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Per guideline: Users may be blocked from editing by Wikipedia administrators to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. Blocks are lifted if they are not (or no longer) necessary to prevent such damage or disruption.

You, as a blocked editor, are responsible for convincing administrators:

that the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption (i.e., that the block violates our blocking policy); or: that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions insteadApteva (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Note to User:Nathan Johnson. I am not avoiding WP:Scrutiny, which states: Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions. and under legitimate uses, it states:

"Privacy: A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area." Which is the sole reason that I use this account. Privacy. No one has a legitimate reason to violate my privacy. Apteva (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Note to User:Cailil. The first User box at User:Apteva says "This username is an alternative account of Delphi234." The categories for the user includes "Alternative Wikipedia accounts". I do not see how more obvious it could be made. Apteva (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Note to administrators considering this unblock request; please see the discussion leading to this block at AN for more context: AN. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * From which it should be clear that this was not a violation of the topic ban, which says, "Apteva is topic banned indefinitely from modifying or discussing the use of dashes, hyphens, or similar types of punctuation, broadly construed, including but not limited to at the manual of style and any requested move discussion." I clarified that means that I can enter dashes and hyphens but can not once entered modify them. I changed a link in a see also section that violates the MOS to one that is correct, a link to the MOS. That was construed to be a discussion of the use of dashes and hyphens, even though it was not. Obviously I have no intention of making that mistake again. Apteva (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a discussion of the use, but it was a modifying of the use. That's part of your topic ban. gwickwire  talk edits 22:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That was the allegation, but obviously that is not as clearly a violation as changing one character to another or in discussing how those characters should be used or in modifying any of the guidelines we have of how those characters are used. All of those would have been a violation, and none of those are what was done, nor what I ever would have done. What I can and will do, though, is avoid doing anything that someone could allege to be a violation, even though it is not a violation. So what I did looked like a violation to someone even though it was not a violation. What I will not do in the future is do anything that looks to them like a violation, to the best of my ability. It is extremely unlikely that they or anyone will disagree and jump up and say that they think that I violated the topic ban. If there was a chance that I might, a block would be needed to stop that from happening. Since there is no chance of it happening, a block is counterproductive and unnecessary. Apteva (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it seemed to be violating at least the intent of the person who wrote the ban; see this comment. In any case, I just wanted any closing administrator to know that this block may have been made in response to alleged community consensus and to be sure and review that discussion before deciding whether to unblock or not. HaugenErik (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just in all honesty here, I take the "all other types of related punctuation" (not exact quote) to mean any punctuation changes. That's broadly construed. You claim to be productive, but you skirt the edges of your topic ban like this. You really need to stop saying you're innocent. There have been discussions on both AN and AN/I that came to an overwhelming consensus you violayted your topic ban. You say there's no chance of you violating it again, but you still do not understand it. You say "it is not a violation" when consensus is that you did violate it. That's not productive, nor a reason to unblock. gwickwire  talk edits 03:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No one has suggested that I can not change commas to periods but only short horizontal lines. As there are eight of them, that is what is meant by broadly construed, not as well as other punctuation. While I do not think I violated the topic ban, I do understand and do not agree with their interpretation of my violating the topic ban, and I do fully understand how to avoid doing anything similar in the future that they might think is a violation of the topic ban. For example, right now another editor is topic banned from using automated editing, and was blocked for using a spread sheet to sort a table. While I know that that is not using automated editing, and a number of other editors thought it was not automated editing, they are still blocked because of that perceived violation. So like me it does not matter if someone violates a topic ban, it matters if someone thinks they violated a topic ban. I know how to avoid that perception of violating the topic ban. I am not going to call it violating the topic ban any more than I am going to say that they violated using automated editing, because while they might have, it does not look to me like they did, and only they know if they did or not. In my case the ban is very easy to tell if I violated it or not and also very easy to tell if someone is going to accuse me of violating it even when I am not, and I do not plan on spending the next few months getting periodically accused of violating the topic ban, by keeping a wide berth of what anyone could think was a violation.


 * To me no one should be blocked for violating a topic ban unless everyone thinks that they violated the topic ban, not for cases where some people think they did and some people think that they did not. For me the test of no one is more practical to follow, instead of asking for everyone, because I have no plans of getting blocked, and have far better things to do than to allow this to come up again. Apteva (talk) 05:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You must  be joking. Are you seriously suggesting that you think that if any one person opposes everybody else, no matter how much or little justification they can give for their eccentric point of view, that point of view automatically overrides everybody else, no matter how many they are and how good their reasons are??? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The best analogy is a jury trial. It does not take a majority vote, or an almost complete consensus, it requires a complete consensus, and has to be decided beyond a reasonable doubt. Blocking an otherwise constructive editor is a serious step, particularly a block as long as a week or two, and must not be done if there is any doubt about the need for that block. The question to ask is what would be the consequences if there was no block. If damage to Wikipedia could be prevented by a block, then a block can be appropriate. Many vandals just move on instead of continuing to vandalize, after escalated warnings, and no block is needed. One turned to venting at the talk page of the warner, but stopped their vandalism. In the case of the editor who was accused of using automation by making one edit that used a spreadsheet to sort a table, a simple undo of that edit and a discussion of whether that constituted a violation of the topic ban on that editors talk page would have been sufficient, instead of preventing them from working productively on Wikipedia by asking for and obtaining a block. No I am not joking. Blocks are serious impediments to editing, and are too big a stick to wield lightly. The principle in consensus decision making is that even if one person out of 6,000 disagrees, they just might be right. In my case I have not done any edits recently anyway because of doing other WM work that is unaffected by the block, and of course there are many other WM projects that I can apply my talents to during the next week. I could learn German, or another language, for example. Apteva (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It's in the numbers, Apteva. Whether you're correct or not, is irrelevant, trust me on that. If enough editors tell you that blue is red? then you'd better stop arguing that blue is blue. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A good analogy, but something is seriously wrong if wikipedia no longer cares if blue is red. Apteva (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I can think of a whole string of reasons why your arguments about jury trials are invalid, including the fact that not all jurisdictions require unanimous verdicts: some accept majorities. It would be a waste of my time explaining all of the reasons. However, I will just mention one of them, which is perhaps the most fundamental. A user called "NE Ent" once wrote It's important to realize WP does not have a justice system. It "has a most of us just want to edit and if someone causes too much aggravation they're going get blocked because no one wants to deal with it" system. The exact wording there may not fit this case perfectly, but the general idea expressed fits it like a glove. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Which is why I agreed to the voluntary moratorium, which should have been where this ended. All of the rest is needless drama. Apteva (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Restriction to one account and Delphi234 blocked
Per the consensus at the discussion at WP:AN, you are restricted to editing solely from the Apteva account from now on. has been blocked indefinitely. Any editing by you from accounts other than Apteva will inevitably lead to an indefinite block on your Apteva account as well. BencherliteTalk 19:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong account. This is the alternate account. Apteva (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. The community has consensified (or come to a consensus) that this account is to be your only account. So, use this one. Sorry if it's not the one you wanted, but you violated your topic ban so this is what happened. gwickwire  talk edits 21:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, Apteva did not violate the hyphen/dash topic-ban set by the closing admin (which I also debated before enactment), but only neared an imagined "community topic-ban" suggested without consensus in RfC/Apteva, and that is no reason to impose a one-username restriction, plus 2 people confirmed no improper use of those 2 usernames, and so per wp:SOCK, there is no basis for the username restriction which violates privacy concerns, and I have asked that an uninvolved admin remove the unfounded block as well. Denying any user the privacy of their username(s) is a very serious matter, not to be rushed to judgment in a matter of 2 days but perhaps an analysis for 5 days would be more suitable. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Go look at the AN discussion looked above. Consensus on AN was for a 1-account limit. Therefore, one account. You can ask all you want, but one admin cannot override consensus. gwickwire  talk edits 03:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Which is why it is being appealed. It is correct that no one admin can overrule an AN discussion (although the closer can). As it is not reasonable or practical, it will need to be appealed. In the meantime I can continue on with other areas, such as RCP, RM, and of course working on becoming an admin. Right now it can be (has been) appealed to Arb, and in six months or so it can be appealed to AN, along with the topic ban. Apteva (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Appeal filed. Not practical to restrict my editing. Apteva (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. Regarding your primary account, Delphi234/Apteva are listed as being registered as follows:
 * Created on 22 May 2008 at 01:52
 * Created on 29 May 2008 at 01:31
 * Your RfAs were filed under Apteva, and the user right changes are also associated with this account: it seems to have been operated as the main account. While it may be chronologically correct for the adopted sole account to be Delphi234, I don't know what policies there are to guide this. Do you? -- Trevj (talk) 12:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Normally the older account is treated as the primary account. In my case it not only is it the older account but the more important account. This account was created both for privacy and for the specific purpose of becoming an admin. I do not consider it to be my primary account, and only use it for three purposes, RM, RCP, and to edit solar articles plus being the admin account after I become an admin. Only one account can have admin privileges. Recently I became embroiled in an RM discussion that went on to several other areas and led to some of those who did not want me to bring up the topic to file an RFC/U, AN, AE, and ANI actions. Just as a hint, if someone needs 500,000 bytes to try to prove that someone is being disruptive, it is extremely likely that the editor who is being disruptive is the one who is on the other end of the argument, i.e. the one who is pushing the idea of disruption, and not the editor being accused of disruption. (almost by definition those 500,000 bytes are a disruption of wikipedia) Apteva (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not a good idea for the first edit after ten days to consist of a repudiation of the lengthy community discussions that occurred prior to the recent block. Nor is it a good idea to signal a return to battle with talk of another party being at fault. Past problems need to be dropped, with engagement in a completely different field of activity. Johnuniq (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Normally the older account is treated as the primary account. In my case it not only is it the older account but the more important account. This account was created both for privacy and for the specific purpose of becoming an admin. I do not consider it to be my primary account, and only use it for three purposes, RM, RCP, and to edit solar articles plus being the admin account after I become an admin. Only one account can have admin privileges. Recently I became embroiled in an RM discussion that went on to several other areas and led to some of those who did not want me to bring up the topic to file an RFC/U, AN, AE, and ANI actions. Just as a hint, if someone needs 500,000 bytes to try to prove that someone is being disruptive, it is extremely likely that the editor who is being disruptive is the one who is on the other end of the argument, i.e. the one who is pushing the idea of disruption, and not the editor being accused of disruption. (almost by definition those 500,000 bytes are a disruption of wikipedia) Apteva (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not a good idea for the first edit after ten days to consist of a repudiation of the lengthy community discussions that occurred prior to the recent block. Nor is it a good idea to signal a return to battle with talk of another party being at fault. Past problems need to be dropped, with engagement in a completely different field of activity. Johnuniq (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Need to reform ANI procedures
Since you still have much energy, then perhaps when you return you would be willing to reform the AN and AN/I processes. I have looked back at detailed cases from one year ago, from January 2012, and I have found that nothing much has improved, in terms of analyzing false claims and avoiding wall-of-text rambling by opponent editors. It is the same pattern now at ANI: "SSDV" (same-shit-different-victim). We cannot openly discuss article-format guidelines, when people are often dragged to ANI and badgered with 23-hour "rulings" when normal editors do not have time to respond to all false accusations within any given x-hour period. We need to allow normal people, with limited part-time hours, to edit Wikipedia pages. The unfounded claims require days to analyze, and there need to be separate subpages created to specifically reject the false claims, and then detect patterns of false claims and properly sanction the editors who wp:FORUMshop until an editor is hounded off the project. Many other editors have been dragged along in the same manner, for years now. You have first-hand experience in how the processes are out-of-control. If I had not been a debate judge for years, I wouldn't have seen the false arguments so clearly, and understood how calm, orderly decisions must follow procedures for careful examination of claims. Well, from this judge, I decided you won the debate, but lost the dogpile. Please consider helping with these reforms, if you wish. No pressure, just a suggestion. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia operates by tradition. We try something out and if it works follow that tradition. The correct process to follow when discussions are going no where and occupy a wall of text is to hat them, which was done at WP:ANI, only to be reverted by the same editor who had opened the thread. That is a a blockable offense, despite the fact that the editor hatting it was warned. So I do not see that anything needs to be changed at AN or AN/I other than to not waste so much hot air on things. 134 pages of text (527,000 bytes) to create a topic ban, when I had already agreed to a moratorium and all that was needed was two words (back off)? Absolutely absurd. Some people really need to get a life. Some of Wikipedia's traditions are good, and some are bad. The only way to change the bad ones is to not follow them, and set higher standards for conduct. Apteva (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Need how-to guides for talking: Well perhaps there could be some how-to pages for discussions, such as "How to talk to people" with examples. I am thinking people could learn stuff like this:
 * "Do you think your edit violated the topic-ban?" - "No."
 * "Would you please not do that again?" - "Well, I do not see any problem."
 * "Okay, but would you just agree to not do that again without prior discussion?" - "Okay, fine."
 * Similarly, we could create several other examples of how to talk to people, and then, when some other disagreement arises, then we could suggest to follow whichever particular how-to guide would apply to the situation. Years ago, I taught computer classes to 6-year-old students, and many of them could learn much faster than what we see around here, but the difference is that the students were following lesson plans which explained the concepts along the way. In prior cases where you have explained things, the reasoning has been so crystal clear, but it seems people just cannot focus on what you are saying and get confused, probably by the wp:IDHT-walls of text obscuring the concise answers you give. Hence, if discussions could re-focus on "20-question" dialogues to follow, then they could re-align their attention to talk with you, rather than rambling with all types of wild off-topic accusations. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Forcing the issue on dashes
Per here and here, you are continuing to violate your topic ban related to dashes. Please stop or additional actions may be necessary. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 17:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The topic ban does not extend to adding dashes. I just can not change one type to another. That dash is needed to allow the RM bot to work correctly. What happens is that the bot does not know where the explanation of the move comes if the dash is not there, and as you can see from this diff, leaves it out from WP:RM. So while no one needs the dash at that talk page, when you remove it, the bot gets messed up. You can see a whole list of other things that can mess up the bot at Wp:RMCI. I am not going to edit war over this with you so I ask you to please revert your revert so that the bot can do its job correctly. Apteva (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please be sure to explain that in the future in order to avoid confusion. A simple, "placing a dash so the bot doesn't get confused" would have been clear enough. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 08:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. I know it's annoying, but it would be helpful if you paid special attention to explaining such actions so people don't get the wrong end of the stick. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 09:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Read the edit summary. But what's up with both of you knowing why it was done and not fixing it as requested? Hopefully at least someone who is watching this page will. Apteva (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I got distracted before I went to make the edit, and by then it was already done. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 18:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Apteva (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Someone who is watching this page will" do what again? ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 16:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * See the two diffs at the top of this section. I made those edits because of needing to fix the listing at WP:RM. All anyone needs to do is revert the last edit at that page., allowing the bot to find the explanation of the requested move and copy it over to wp:rm. I would suggest the edit summary "undo good faith edit". Apteva (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fixed. Apteva (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)