Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MarshallBagramyan (talk | contribs) at 20:32, 14 April 2011 (→Rationale for Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Parodies of Harry Potter (3rd nomination)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to my talk page!

Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:

• Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.

• Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.

• If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: ].

• If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.

Arb advice needed

Hi Sandstein, I'm looking at a situation for which I'd appreciate your advice regarding how to proceed. I'm asking you since you seem to be more familiar with the workings of ArbCom and WP:AE than I am, although I do participate at WP:AE on rare occasions. I have been involved in longevity articles in an admin capacity only, to ensure that the ArbCom general sanctions regarding longevity articles are adhered to.

ArbCom ruled: User:Ryoung122 "is indefinitely prohibited from editing, commenting on, or otherwise participating in any Misplaced Pages process related to articles about longevity, broadly interpreted." (See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#Ryoung122 topic banned).

Last Friday, here Ryoung makes a long, rather non-sequitur comment advocating sweeping changes to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (icons) in response to a proposal for a well-supported minor change that would broaden the guideline to apply to flags inserted in longevity articles.

A few minutes later, Ryoung122 posts this somewhat incivil message to the talk page of the person who proposed the MOS modification.

This definitely appears to fall under "commenting on, or otherwise participating in any Misplaced Pages process related to articles about longevity, broadly interpreted".

What sort of action is appropriate here? Deleting or collapsing his comments in the MOSICON discussion? Blocking the user for a time? Letting him off with a warning? I'm not comfortable with blocking him as it seems punitive in this case, and I don't like the idea of punitive blocks. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that , at least, violates Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#Ryoung122 topic banned. There are also other recent such edits: and . The applicable enforcement provision is Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#Enforcement of decision sanctions. You can either proceed as described there (block or impose a discretionary sanction) or make a request at WP:AE to act on the violation.

I think that a 48h or 72h block is appropriate. It would not be punitive because it prevents (for its duration) and thereafter deters continued violations. You can also delete the problematic comments, but in similar cases I've never bothered to.  Sandstein  17:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

An AE request was now made and I have blocked the editor, see WP:AE#Ryoung122.  Sandstein  20:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I know better now how to respond appropriately next time. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit war potential

Sorry. Lameness continues, please take a look at User_talk:Noetica#More_Mexican.7EAmerican_War and User_talk:Kwamikagami#dash_moves_related_to_Mexican.E2.80.93American_War. I could do with some advice about how to proceed. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, but the lameness was fixed by Sandstein. The other stuff is just the normal ridiculous debate over whether to use a hyphen or dash in the title. Let's not confuse a legitimate (yet incredibly long and tedious) debate with a problem that needs an admin solution. -- Avanu (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Given the warnings against edit-warring at MOS:STABILITY, I think that this requires admin intervention. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Enric Naval, can you tell me here, concisely and with diffs, what the problem is and what you want me to do?  Sandstein  16:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You see, in 15 March the article Mexican–American War was moved from hyphenated form to dashed form because of this move request, and then I changed the name in the text to fit the title. Then Tony reverted my moves (he couldn't move the article because it's move protected. Then PMAnderson and kwami edit-warred about it (with another editor joining in the fray [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mexican-American_War&diff=419406218&oldid=419404306)

Then PMAnderson was blocked for edit-warring because he had a story of being blocked for edit-warring here, while kwami went away with nothing. Then kwami opened a RM to revert back to the dashed form.

Days later in 24 March, while the second RM was still open. Cwenger tried again to remove the dashes to fit the title, Tony1 reverted again, claiming a lot of things

Then the RM was finally closed in 4 April, saying that there was no consensus to revert the move. So, 8 days later, in 12 April I tried to change again the text to fit the title. I was reverted by Tony1, someone else reverted him citing consistency with current title, and Tony1 reverted again. So, I reverted him and left him an edit-warring warning, and Tony1 warns me against "pushing my personal POV" but at least he stops reverting and he opens a discussion to gather consensus. And then Noetica restored the dashes again , and I have warned him that "Please restore the hyphen yourself or I'll have to report you to the edit warring noticeboard".

Meanwhile, Cwenger, edits a related article that has the same name in the title, inserting a hyphen to fit the main article. And then, Kwami, the guy who opened the second RM that didn't get consensus, edits that article to insert dashes instead of hypehn, when that article has never had dashes in the name, and when he couldn't gather consensus to move the title of the main article from hyphen to dash. So, I have warned him about WP:POINTy edit-warring with stylistic issues, which happens to be very forbidden by MOS:STABILITY, which cites four arbitration cases to support it.

So, please give a final warning to Noetica, Kwami and Tony1 for edit-warring over stylistic issies (violating MOS:STABILITY) and making edits that go against consensus in talk pages and against two move requests. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, this looks like an edit war might be going on there, but the issue (a hyphen or an en dash?) looks so incredibly lame to me that I really don't feel that the half an hour I would need to look at this and issue warnings, blocks etc. would be time well spent. Normal readers do not notice, much less care, whether there are a thousand back-and-forth reverts about hyphenation. I recommend that you take it to WP:AN3 if you think that there is an actionable edit-warring case. Maybe another admin will take action despite the lameness of the whole issue. Or maybe you and everybody else could just drop it and edit something more, er, immediately useful?  Sandstein  17:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Enric's description hardly touches the surface. This dispute has periodically flared since at least 2007. At that time, the en dash was breaking the MediaWiki software (UTF-16 support was not available till MediaWiki version 1.12 in March 2008). Please remember this situation the next time you feel the need to template the regulars before you investigate the facts yourself. Your nastygram has at least given me a reason to distance myself and let a comparatively new Wikipedian, such as yourself, deal with this issue. --Allen3  19:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

@Sandstein. Ok, I'll give AN3 a try. As Allen3 says, this seems to be a long term problem, with editors at the MOS page refusing to follow the usage in RS and following instead their preferred usages. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

And, just for the record, another editor decided to enter in the fray and make another revert, so I have sent him to AN3, and I have posted a general warning in the talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Note

Hi, Sandstein. One of your AfD closes has been brought to DRV and I thought you ought to have a chance to participate in the discussion, which is here. All the best—S Marshall T/C 21:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification.  Sandstein  05:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

A problem

I have posted on the talk page of the Orontid article, references that indicate they are of Persian ancestry. I posted my information in the Orontid article(not removing any reference stating Armenian ancestry) and only to be blindly reverted by Phoenicians8(who has not participated on the talk page. I revert it and stated please discuss on talk page, at which point he appeared to simply allow the Persian ancestry and references to stand. I had also added Persian ancestry and references to the Satrapy of Armenia article. However, he posted on Kevorkmail's talk page at which point the Persian ancestry and references was removed from both articles(without the use of the talk page) by Kevorkmail. How can I get these editors to engage in the talk pages? If they can remove the Persian ancestry and references they will not waste their time on the talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you please re-phrase this to include all relevant wikilinks and diffs?  Sandstein  05:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Rationale for Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Parodies of Harry Potter (3rd nomination)

Hello Sandstein. I have just checked that this AfD was closed with a keep result, but no rationale was given. Could you tell me which was the rationale? While a majority of the votes were in favor of keeping the article, AfD is not a vote and I feel that none of the keep arguments addressed the concerns I had raised when I nominated the article. Also, I believe that I showed that many of these arguments were incorrect interpretations of the guidelines and policies, particularly with the lack of reliable sources and the false Google hits results and, because of this, the article was in line with the criteria of reasons for deletion. Per WP:VOTE and WP:CONLIMITED, even if a majority of editors want to keep an article, said article must still meet the generally accepted policy or guideline and I don't believe that this is the case. The way this AfD was closed, it seems like it was a simple vote. Because of this, I would like to know what was the rationale. Jfgslo (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. The rationale was that there was obviously no consensus to delete the article. Literally everybody but you was of the opinion that the article should be kept. So even if I were to agree with your arguments and disregard everybody else's, there's simply no way I can find a consensus to delete under such circumstances, since one person does not make consensus.  Sandstein  14:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Understood. I wish other editors would have bothered with checking the AfD nomination and the article itself. Thanks for the prompt answer. Jfgslo (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Invoking ethnic identity

I know I may sound like a broken record, but could you please tell this editor to refrain from invoking the ethnic identity of authors (see here). This is not the first time he has made such comments. And while it may appear somewhat ambiguous, the least he can do is to justify why he objects to Armenian sources. It does not appear that he is doing so because the sources might not be free to go up against the government, but seems to stem from his belief that because the authors are Armenian, then they cannot report objectively. Thank you.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)