Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Repeal of hyphen ban		12 January 2013	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Historical elections	13 Sep 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	Motion	(orig. case)	26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	8 September 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Repeal of hyphen ban

Initiated by Apteva (talk) at 23:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Apteva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Diff. 1
• Diff. 2

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• [1]

Statement by Apteva

A comparison of hyphen, minus sign, dashes, and underscore.

This is very simple. Withdrawn. There are now two requests at AN that the topic be brought to Arbcom, perhaps through a negotiated discussion such as that of Palestine.

Were this case to be expanded beyond a an appeal of the topic ban, I would suggest that the only appropriate direction would be to address the topic of the incivility of the MOS, which is the only reason this ever became a topic, per WP:AOTE.

Request that Arbcom appoint three editors to moderate a discussion on short-horizontal-lines in titles. No one disputes how they are used at WP:MOS other than that three of the examples are incorrect, although the stipulations of how they are applied are too stringent (there are cases where both are equally appropriate, and that needs to be noted, instead of saying which to use in every case).

The simplest and most direct approach is to delete the summary of WP:Title selection at WP:MOS, and replace it with the sentence "Article titles are determined by Wikipedia:Article titles policy."

And with that the entire short-horizontal-lines controversy vanishes forever.

Statement by Seraphimblade

Rschen has already listed the two discussions which were most germane to the applicability of the topic ban. Overall, between the request for comment and the discussion on AN, there was a clear consensus that Apteva's participation had been disruptive through tendentious editing and refusal to accept consensus. I believe that this interpretation of the consensus at these two discussions was correct. I would also note that many participants at this discussion specifically noted that they believed Apteva's assurance of voluntary abstention from this area to be inadequate, and noted their belief that a topic ban was necessary.

I am unsure, then, where the assertion that the topic ban is "inappropriate" stems from. While many editors involved in the dispute did participate in the RfC/U and AN discussion, many uninvolved editors did as well, and in general concurred. I have never myself been involved in the debates over this issue, nor do I have any particular opinion as to how they should turn out. The ban discussion itself ran longer than the recommended 24 hours, and with the RfC/U immediately preceding it, had input for much longer than that. I therefore believe that my decision on the discussion's outcome was appropriate, followed policy, and was supported by consensus. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Rschen7754

Overall, the case filing is incomplete. The following should be added to the list of parties:

• Wikid77 (talk · contribs)
• Dicklyon (talk · contribs)
• LittleBenW (talk · contribs)

MBisanz (talk · contribs) and I have been watching this as well but are not primary parties.

Should be added to the above under dispute resolution:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Apteva
• Wikipedia:AN#Admin_attention_to_an_RFC.2FU.2C_please

The picture is a lot bigger than Apteva paints. --Rschen7754 01:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

@Coren: I personally think the committee should go further than the topic ban and look at conduct issues the broader topic, as I'll explain in my statement. --Rschen7754 02:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Seraphimblade and Hahc21 have gotten a lot of the basics of the dispute. There are two reasons why I think ArbCom should take this case:

The topic ban relating to Apteva and dashes is unlikely to prevent further disruption by Apteva to the encyclopedia.

• Apteva is not adhering to the spirit of the topic ban, as documented Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Post-close notice (Topic ban, what topic ban?). However, no admins are actually willing to block for this violation, as seen here WP:AN/I#Topic ban violator needs a block - textbook something that the community isn't resolving. They may be adhering to the letter of the topic ban, but are continuing to further their side of the dispute in the process.
• Further IDHT issues outside the MOS - as discussed at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Apteva, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Apteva 2.
• The IDHT and wikilawyering issues have been long-term: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Apteva.
• An overall IDHT attitude and refusing to respond positively to criticism - RFC (holding their ground in the face of a strong consensus), undoing the closure of their own RFC [2] and their response to the warning by MBisanz, showing no understanding of the issue: User_talk:Apteva/Archive_4#Only_warning and followed by Wikilawyering.

The conduct of other users needs to be examined.

• Wikid77 has continued to pursue Apteva's position and pursuing a battleground mentality [3]. MBisanz has given him a warning for his behavior [4]
• Others have called for a topic ban on LittleBenW as well.
• Currently there is no clear consensus on applying the same topic ban to Wikid77 and LittleBenW Wikipedia:AN#Proposal:_Apply_the_same_topic_ban_as_Apteva_to_Wikid77_and_LittleBenW and many believe that ArbCom should resolve the issue: Wikipedia:AN#Closing_this_discussion.3F
• This is partially because many feel the ban is one-sided and does not address the conduct of other users in the dispute.

The community is divided on the matter of the topic ban and on these users' conduct, and ArbCom needs to examine the conduct issues here. --Rschen7754 05:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Further update: I've been pointed to Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(capitalization)#Give_it_a_rest, an issue regarding further disruption by Apteva regarding the capitalization of birds. --Rschen7754 19:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Hahc21

I have been closely following this from the beginning. I agree with Reschen7754 that all involved parties have not been named (also, the critical ones have been named by Rschen, not Apteva). This all started a long ago with the attempt by Apteva to impose a new standard that hyphens should prevail over en- and em-dashes, arguing that the Manual of Style was incorrect in the matter. His unwillingness to accept what was told to him (that we should follow the MoS when applying the Article titles policy) led to the creation of a request for comment about the user and his behaviour. Although I fail to properly characterize Apteva's behaviour as disruptive, most members of community assessed it as such. My first appearance was during the proposal of the first motion to close the RFC; I did several modifications to remove several things from such motion that violated the RFC closing guidelines and then, I provided a clearer writing of the desired outcome:

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...

After that, I had a conversation with Apteva on his talk page, asking him to let it go and find other things to do on the pedia, for good. I even recommended him to "let the waters calm down, and slowly bring, with a different approach, this matter in the future." Although I agree that some of the users supporting the ban held a non-neutral position on the matter, comunity as a whole supported the ban, and as of yet, I see no reason to overturn. Maybe in six months or a year. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

@ArbCom I should clarify that my comment stating that "I see no reason to overturn" the ban doesn't show my views about how this should be solved. As I stated on the RFC (and later on the AN/I thread), ArbCom would be the only entity able to put an end to this. I opposed a community-imposed ban because under this circumstances, the committe is the only one who can hold proper water about this matter. Why? because it is unbiased and neutral; two things many members of the community lack. I was thinking about a motion, but several other parties' behaviour has to be evaluated and (if appropriate) sanctioned. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Kurtis

Oh, for the love of God...

I'm sorry if this comes off as blunt, but... look, Apteva, just drop it. OK? Are hyphens and en-dashes really so important as to merit all this? Who cares? It is such a trivial issue that I cannot fathom how anyone could become this obsessed with it.

Please, just let it go. It's a huge, huge waste of everyone's time and energy to worry about which dash is which. Trust me, nobody else gives a crap. Why not focus on editing articles instead? Kurtis ^(talk) 02:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Apteva gave me this update on my talk page. I'll leave it between him and the rest of the community, as I couldn't care less anymore. Not really my forte. Kurtis ^(talk) 03:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq

I first commented on this issue a month ago at WP:VPP (in this archived section). I repeat, "@Apteva: Wikipedia requires a good community to build the encyclopedia. Vandals and incompetent editors are easily handled—what destroys a community is endless bickering. Let's say the previous discussions were all wrong, and the conclusions are invalid. It is still the case that the horse has been sufficiently beaten, and the matter must be dropped...." Someone needs to make that clear to Apteva, and an indefinite block might be the only thing that gets their attention (a block that would be removed immediately they acknowledge the problem, and undertake to drop dashes and all associated discussion and appeals/clarifications for 12 months). An Arbcom case is not needed for that, but please, would someone stop the disruption. Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Hasteur

I mentioned in the statements of the RfC/U that a moratirium on calling the question needed to occur. From the outright rejection of the RfC/U, to the "OMG TL:DR" AN thread, and now here we have a user who refuses to pay attention to the will of the community. I propose a ban on calling the question (of punctuation) or challenging the community imposed topic ban for a period of no less than 6 months. The community's patience has been exhausted. Either the user will develop a sense of clue, or the user should be met with suspensions of editing privileges with increasing duration. Hasteur (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Art LaPella

I don't really like the dash rules either, but I know a consensus when I see one. Apteva should have recognized that consensus by last October. Art LaPella (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Dicklyon

I support Seraphimblade's statement that his closing the discussion with a topic ban was appropriate, reflecting a huge community consensus after months of Apteva's disruptive behavior and numerous attempts to deal with it.

I have told Seraphimblade, however, that he left a problem for us by not stating the ban in the way that included all the scope that the community had clearly asked for, with the result that Apteva has continued his anti-MOS disruption, skirting the ban. Seraphimblade says the ban already is clearly intended to prohibit the behavior that Apteva has continued to engage in, but this was not clear to Apteva, due to the wording of the closing statement and ban. I don't really expect ArbCom to take this up, but if they do, their deliberations must include clarifying the ban and/or blocking Apteva for violating it already. I can provide links and diffs if it comes to that. It's discussed here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Post-close notice (Topic ban, what topic ban?), and at Seraphimblade's suggestion I requested a block via WP:AN/I#Topic ban violator needs a block. Dicklyon (talk) 03:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Guerillero

Any disruption of the MOS pages can be dealt with under the existing discretionary sanctions and do not seem to need a full case. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by David1217

I am somewhat involved in this mess, having opened two RfCs on the matter of hyphens/dashes in airport names. I don't have a position either way, as I have started RMs on hyphens to dashes and dashes to hyphens. When I asked for clarification on the use of hyphens vs. dashes, I was amazed at the nastiness and bad faith from users in that topic. I fully support the topic-ban of Apteva—if anything, ArbCom should open a case to look at other editors in this topic are who also perhaps deserve a topic-ban. David1217 ^{What I've done} 06:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved BorisG

• I support Apteva's view on the use of hyphens and en dashes (per WP:Commonname).
• I find the opposite you prepostorous.
• I find the issue to be minor but important. Wikipedia's major role is educational, and the last thing we want is to promote errors.
• Yet Wikipedia works by consensus and everyone has to abide by such consensus.
• Apteva has been properly topic banned for his failure to adhere to that consensus.
• There is nothing improper in this topic ban, and there is nothing for the ArbCom to do here (however, clarification of the scope of the ban might be useful). No longer certain. There may be fault on both sides, and allegations of wp:own in MOS and suppression of opposing views may need to be looked into. BorisG (talk) 09:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Neotarf

There seems to be some confusion over the exact terms of the topic ban. Even today, Wikid77 is saying that Apteva's latest MOS-related edits at WP:TITLE do not violate the topic ban [5], even though the admin who wrote the ban has said that they do. [6]

Here are three more diffs for "dispute resolution" that has been tried.

Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Neotarf

Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Dicklyon

Requests for mediation/Mexican-American War

—Neotarf (talk) 09:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Wikid77

I, User:Wikid77 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), editor since before May 2006, began this as an uninvolved editor in December 2012 (as was User:LittleBenW), when I first noticed the RfC/Apteva, curious to learn why endashed titles seem very rare (<7%) in wp:RS reliable sources. In every post Apteva made, I began to agree with every comment s/he was making, and searched thousands of webpages to confirm the world mostly uses hyphens, not dashes, as the wp:COMMONNAME spelling in many titles ("Comet Hale-Bopp" or "Michelson-Morley experiment" or "hand-eye coordination"). Clearly, a WP policy overrides a guideline, and world-chosen titles should override suggested wp:MOS dash rules. I thought Apteva was great for politely, concisely reminding people to use common-name spellings, as policy trumps guidelines, and did not see evidence of "disruption" there. However, the hostility against Apteva seemed very intense, but no evidence (as diff-links) confirmed any disruption from Apteva's polite remarks. Having been a debate judge for years, I examined the unfounded claims, considered their basis in fallacies, and sided with Apteva on the issues. Apteva showed remarkable politeness, so it took me a while to realize a single editor, User:Dicklyon had initiated each forum against Apteva (RFC/Apteva, most RFC edits, topic-ban, topic-ban violation, and topic-ban block), backed by a group of prior wp:MOS editors who seemed very hostile. After Apteva was topic-banned, then User:SMcCandlish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) filed a proposed topic-ban against both me and User:LittleBenW (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) as "co-horts" even though we had no prior contact with each other nor Apteva before RfC/Apteva. The few users who supported the topic-ban against me and LittleBenW were mainly involved editors, or had advocated prior bans against us, against me about Amanda Knox in Italy's Murder of Meredith Kercher, or against LittleBenW about diacrtics (see our usernames in WP:RESTRICT).

Obviously, for LittleBenW and myself to go from uninvolved, total strangers (Intersect-talk Wikid77/LBW) to be accused as a "triumvirate" with Apteva was bizarre, and fortunately very easy to refute by looking at Intersect-contributions (Intersect-talk Apteva/W77, Intersect-talk Apteva/LBW), since we 3 rarely posted to the same article-talk pages (Apteva and I independently edited many solar-power articles (Intersect-articles Apteva/W77), months apart, as I changed {Convert} when solar articles wp:Exceeded template limits). Hence, such over-the-top claims of non-existent "collusion" made me very suspicious that there was, in deed, a campaign to silence non-pro-dash editors, regardless of how unjust was the wp:Wikihounding to claim strangers as cohorts. At this point, I think Apteva is just too polite to consider a pro-MOS wp:TAGTEAM has insisted on the topic-ban(s), and I do not know the prior connections, between all those involved editors, to see exactly who !voted a "false consensus" that Apteva had been disruptive when perhaps other editors shouted wildly in every talk-page which Apteva had edited. To summarize the issues:

• Trampling by wiki-dash-osaurus: It seems Apteva has been the victim of a combination of pro-dash advocates plus false consensus thinking that policy wp:COMMONNAME titles must respell hyphens as suggested wp:MOS dashes (or else). Meanwhile, other editors within the dashosaurus imagine the suggested dashes are mandatory because wp:MOS recommends their use (and "Style is never wrong, just inappropriate"), and even conclude MOS overrides policy wp:TITLE to force dashes where 99% of sources state hyphenated "hand-eye coordination" (not dash).
• Shoot the messenger: Because Apteva's posted remarks have been so low-key polite, focused on policy/guideline separation, then it seems the attacks have been to silence the messenger who brings unpleasant news that wp:MOS is only a "mere guideline" and policy wp:TITLE is higher, and do not say that huge numbers of Wikipedians do not care about dashes (or hyphens) forced where they are not used. No, shut up because style is supreme, and no scientists (or experts) should be allowed to name their titles (as explained by essay wp:Specialist style fallacy, wp:SSF).
• Fallacy Argumentum ad populum: (majority) The RFC/Apteva was treated as clear "evidence" of disruption needing a topic ban, but it was only structured as statements of opinion, followed by signatures to "Endorse" each stated view, and most people decided the RFC/U must topic-ban Apteva, but again, gave no evidence of disruption, and hence, if 28 people endorse the first motion-to-close then that must be true, by fallacy of majority means true.
• Imagined consensus: Because the format of hyphens/dashes and titles involves numerous rules, there are questions about what is real versus imagined consensus. Per policy wp:COMMONNAME, titles should match common spelling (preponderance of wp:RS), and "spelled with hyphens" is a 100-year term (re: "hyphenated American"), but guideline wp:MOS suggests replacing some hyphens with dashes, but wp:TITLE does not treat dashes as policy, and the ~60 style rules for hyphens/dashes are so complex that a wp:COMPETENCE survey of editors would flunk a dash rules test, indicating a so-called consensus of people who do not know the rules is purely an "imagined consensus" not a real agreement that editors have given consent. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Long story short, the topic-ban against Apteva seems premature, pushed by fallacy argumentum ad nauseum to endlessly repeat "disruption" in noting imagined consensus purportedly from Apteva's polite messages, and by begging the question that somehow the conflicts would cease after Apteva's topic-ban, but instead, conflicts escalated when Wikid77 and LittleBenW became the new targets for topic-ban next, and Apteva was accused of topic-ban violation (wp:AN) and then request for topic-ban block (wp:ANI). Hence, clearly (hello?), the current topic-ban of Apteva is just STEP 1 in a pattern of wp:Wikihounding of 3 unrelated editors who dislike forcing dashes or pushing wp:MOS guideline to override policies. Meanwhile, Apteva has been too polite to advance that viewpoint, and did not mention all forums were initiated by talk-page opponent User:Dicklyon (Intersect-talk Dicklyon/Apteva), who had filed RfC/Apteva, with most RfC posts, filing community-ban request, topic-ban request, topic-ban extension, and topic-ban-block request (etc.). Apteva (and me Wikid77, LitteBenW and even User:Enric_Naval) have been caught in a power-play to force wp:MOS title styles to higher levels of mandate, regardless of whose editing is disrupted when making that wp:POINT. As I noted, I was a debate judge for years, and when 3 unrelated, long-term editors (not SPAs) become targets accused of "collusion" then the pattern of one-sided badgering is easy to show. That team defeated itself in this debate, by claiming that unrelated editors must be in nefarious collusion to question pushing of dashes where hyphens have been used for decades or centuries. If more diff-links are needed, just ask. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:47, revised 17:29, 13 January, added "Imagined consensus" 20:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding Statement of LittleBenW: The diacritics topic-ban of User:LittleBenW was placed on 1 December 2012 (ban imposed at AN/I by User:Jayron32), and so LittleBenW might still seem more concerned with that diacritics ban, than just focusing on Apteva's dash topic-ban from 6 January 2013. The 4th targeted editor, User:Enric_Naval (>2004), involved in some prior dash/hyphen debates (Intersect-talk Dicklyon/Apteva /Enric_Naval: 132 talk-pages), was scratched from the suggested topic-ban against Wikid77 (me) and LittleBenW, after agreeing to keep quiet about hyphens/dashes in the future. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• Regarding opinions of arbitrators: I ask that the arbitrators consider the further issue of "imagined consensus" (which I added in my statement above) to conclude that claims of "disruption as denying consensus" is based on invalid argument from false premises by assuming a real consensus exists, when clearly that is a false assumption to think there is strong agreement to mandate dashes into commonly hyphenated titles, rather than a MOS suggestion for dash styles. Also wp:Featured articles, while using wp:MOS rules, do not imply dashes are a mandatory policy which editors cannot talk against; instead wp:FA pages merely follow suggested guidelines but do not dictate policy. I hope that additional clarification explains why I advise lifting the ill-gotten dash topic-ban against Apteva: it is not "disruptive" to repeatedly deny an imagined consensus, and hence no need to topic-ban for disruptive talks. I also encourage a broad-consensus survey (4 months?) to get real consensus about who consents to use whichever hyphen/dash formats. Even if this topic-bad case is declined at this time, the above issues still needed clarification for a potential re-opening at a later date. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by LittleBenW

• I couldn't care less about hyphens vs. dashes, and have not been involved in changing hyphens to dashes, or vice versa. But I do feel that the behavior of a few people who think that they own the MOS and can invent and impose arbitrary rules—without consideration of commonsense and real-world practices—is sometimes a problem.
• Comments from Enric Naval, ErikHaugen and Dicklyon on 6 Jan., here point out that "Wikid77 joined (Apteva) only about 33 days ago, and has been much less vocal and persistent; probably less than 1 related post per day". I have been even less involved with this issue. Shadowjams, DCI2026, My76Strat, SarekOfVulcan and Nathan_Johnson also agree (on Jan. 8 and 9) that no topic ban is called for. As Wikid77 points out, for he and I "to go from uninvolved, total strangers to be accused as a "triumvirate" with Apteva was bizarre".
• SMcCandlish "submissions" seem to be limited to persistent and repetitive strings of accusations with little or no factual justification, personal insults, smear tactics, and threats. I don't think it's possible for him to engage in polite and rational discussion. Maybe he has never heard of the Golden Rule? < Regarding the diacritics issue > In the continued discussion following the ANI several people (such as PBS, Wolbo, Nouniquenames, Collect, Kauffner, Jæs, Reyk, and Alanscottwalker) protested the gross unfairness and lack of due process in ramming through a very extreme indefinite diacritics topic ban in just under 29 hours during a holiday period. For the record, I think I have only once "added an unaccented variation of a name or other word as an alternate form to one with diacritics" (in the lede of the Walesa article) and probably never "converted any diacritical mark to its basic glyph on any article or other page". This appears to have been all a sham, an attempt to shut down any discussion about doing proper research in a broad range of reliable sources, and to stop any discussion about keeping English Wikipedia widely accessible and useful to the majority of people who can't read foreign languages, while properly catering to the minority of people who want to see both versions together, which I support. LittleBen (talk) 12:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement of Alanscottwalker

I can't say I care about hyphens and dashes and I have some sympathy for the view that it is a dumb debate. On the other hand, I keep seeing multiple editors say they disagree with what is claimed to be "consensus" and from an uninvolved perspective that makes it appear that some users are ramming consensus down throats, which is the textbook opposite of consensus. Thus, in these discussions, here, and here, I suggested Arbcom review, to sort these things out. Arbitrators should arbitrate to break the back. If there were consensus, those in the smallish minority would be basically ignored in their attempts to discuss it, with perhaps a link in reply. (Style vs. substance, seems to require more nuance than that, or what it's been given, heretofore). Guidelines have built-in flexibility, more so than policy, so the nexus of the dispute maybe there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

@Collect: Swift has come up in this before. [7]Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to be precise, if it matters, Littleben's characterizations of my comments, above, at the AN he links may not be how I would characterize them, but anyone can read them for themselves. I did ask about appeal process because of all the post close discussion, there. Moreover, ongoing issues with the AN process, time, etc. should be and often is of general concern as noted below by Reyk. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Collect

Jonathan Swift would be pleased. Meanwhile I would point out that, IMHO, the addition of people marginally, if at all, related to the "Apteva issue" is errant. Comments on the order of "Other people have mmentioned others" or similar comments are insufficient to add such others to this case, and serve only to muddy what actual conduct issues might be aplicable to the limited case initially proposed. LBW notified me that my name was mentioned, but I likely would have stumbled here in any event. Consider only the limited issues of Apteva's conduct, please, and do not open floodgates. Collect (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Kiefer.Wolfowitz

If you take hyphens seriously, you will surely go mad.

— Style-book of the Oxford University Press, [8]

Verily, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by DCI2026

Although it doesn't appear likely that a case will be accepted, I would encourage a review of these matters by Arbcom. It boils down to an overblown MoS dispute; Apteva, Wikid77, and LittleBenW have reasonably valid points regarding dash and hyphen usage, but have ignored the decision of the community not to follow the course they have advised. Not only have they ignored this decision, they have pressed the issue to a point where discussions on the subject are apparently interminable. These discussions invariably result in the abovementioned group's propagation of their ideas, and other participants' vehement counterattacks. Although I opposed community topic-banning, and still do (on grounds that voluntary abstentions could do the same), I think a review of this matter by an uninvolved group (e.g. Arbcom) would be beneficial to resolving it once and for all. dci | TALK 19:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Reyk

I was asked by LittleBenW to comment here, because I commented in his ANI ban discussion. In his statement above, LittleBenW includes me in a group of editors that protested the unfairness and lack of due process of the ban discussion. That's not quite correct. I didn't have a strong opinion about the ban, and still don't. All I said was that I think his own user space should be exempt from it. However, reading over the discussion again, I think it was closed too soon. It's always a little dubious when a debate quickly closes one way, but people who comment afterward mostly say the opposite and complain they never got a chance to comment. The reason could be that people already involved in a dispute are keeping an eye on it, and are ready to pile on as soon as the debate is open; but uninvolved, neutral observers are not as quick off the mark. I'm not necessarily saying that's what happened this time, but I've seen it happen before, and I do think the debate should have been kept open longer. Reyk _YO! 22:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Andy Dingley

Anything up to and including an indef block, just to get rid of Apteva and allow those editors with more productive things to be doing to get on with them. The dead-horse issues are obvious and this has gone on far, far too long. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment on peripheral issue by Casliber

@Rschen7754, the capitalisation debate is not Apteva vs. other editors, but an protracted debate spanning years with several editors on each side arguing a position. I'd not say his conduct is worse than others' involved in that impasse Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Note to Clerk: If any of the clerks (or former clerks from 2011, or anyone else) is aware of the answer to my question below, please let me know. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

All that I can find in my archives of relevance is Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/dash_drafting --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that Arbcom-overseen discussion was successfully concluded and accepted as a major revision of the MOS section on dashes; accepted here by arb Casliber with summary "discussion closed - draught accepted. Let's give this a rest for a while". It continued to get some tuning, but settled down most arguments since then (with exceptions around Pmanderson, who got himself topic banned for continuing disruptions about dashes, and then got permanently blocked for abusive sock puppetry in further anti-MOS disruptions around the beginning of 2012). Then Apteva restarted the mess four months ago. Dicklyon (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; between the above and Fut.Perf.'s post on my talkpage, my question has been answered. (Further input is welcome, but in parties' own sections, thanks.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Repeal of hyphen ban: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/8/0/2>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• As a general rule, I don't believe ArbCom should overturn community-imposed sanctions, unless there are egregious procedural errors or it is evident that the consensus to impose them was otherwise tainted; in brief, I don't believe we should be second-guessing the community, unless there are special circumstances. I am awaiting more statements, before making a decision, but my preliminary perception is that, in this case, there are no reasons to repeal the topic ban in question. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Having read more about the issue, I would be open to considering a case regarding the larger picture, i.e. the short-horizontal-lines war, but to do so, the case needs to be framed in a different manner, in my opinion. This means that I'm now opting to decline to hear this case but without prejudice. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• Decline; the Committee would not intervene to overturn a community sanction unless there was something cleary improper about it or the way it had been discussed; I see no indication that this is the case here. — Coren ^(talk) 02:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • As a note, it seems clear that there are still lingering issues around the entire dash-thing, but this request framed around a specific sanction is the wrong way to go about it. Might I suggest a novel approach: 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 for consideration. — Coren ^(talk) 16:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• Decline. There is a certain irony that I pretty much share Apteva's position on the use of endashes versus hyphens. (Readers might want to read the current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Five Pillars and consider whether the required use of punctuation marks that are unavailable on any standard English language keyboard is an accessibility issue.) Nonetheless, it's pretty clear what the current consensus position is on this issue. The topic ban on Apteva may not be the most elegantly worded; however, its intention is clear and Apteva was clearly testing boundaries. Apteva, you might want to consider whether or not you should withdraw this request. Risker (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• Rschen7754's statement is that this matter goes further and deeper than the request to lift a topic ban. I'd like to look a bit more into that; and I'd be interested in hearing more statements about the users Rschen7754 mentions. However, as with my colleagues above, I don't see ArbCom lifting the topic ban. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• Decline appeal. I also don't see a need to open a case on the broader issue; having followed some of the noticeboard thread; this seems well within what the community can handle by itself. NW (Talk) 15:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• I suppose that we need to permit the filing party to withdraw his request at this stage. Had it not been withdrawn, the request would warrant attention, not simply as an appeal from a topic-ban, but to address what is alleged to be a broader pattern of problems in this area. In which regard, what ever happened with the discussion that the Committee directed to occur in 2011, as per these motions? Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• Decline. As to the appeal, I'm far from convinced that we should take the extraordinary step of disturbing a community sanction. As to the broader issue, it falls under the discretionary sanctions authorized in WP:ARBATC, and I want to see evidence that it is beyond AE's capability to handle before I would consider taking a case. T. Canens (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• Decline along similar thinking as T. Caneus. Courcelles 02:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Decline as framed, but I do think Coren's suggestion is a good one: that 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 (with the emphasis on sorting out lingering side issues, not rehashing the whole debate - there would also be a need to show whether or not the discretionary sanctions mentioned by T. Canens are working). For the record, I'm noting here that I recused when a case related to the manual of style came up several years ago (the date delinking one: WP:ARBDATE) and was not an arbitrator at the time of the article titles and capitalisations case (WP:ARBATC, which partially related to the manual of style). Both cases are worth looking through. I recused in the former due to having taken part in related discussions, but cannot recall having taken part in discussions on the issues raised here. Though I do hold general views on the matter, essentially that some people (including those who are extremely knowledgeable on matters relating to manuals of style) get far too caught up in manual of style debates (some of which, as many have noted, can be marginal to most readers and many editors), but that as Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit and no-one is really able to direct volunteer efforts to where they are really needed (unless by dint of persuasion), it is difficult to avoid reams of discussion on such marginal topics. But then that could be said of many disputes that reach arbitration. Carcharoth (talk) 08:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Decline appeal, per most of my colleagues above. AGK [•] 12:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)