Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Omnedon (talk | contribs) at 02:55, 7 May 2014 (Hostility). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Born2cycle Talk Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Conciseness razor listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Conciseness razor. Since you had some involvement with the Conciseness razor redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

For your involvement in the spectacle at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

But on a serious note, to repeat from the policy against edit-warring: An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion. Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked.

I understand that you may have thought you had good reasons to make the latest revert, but as an established user, you are expected to know by now that it is no defense to say "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" - especially when it was patently obvious by that point (from the number of times the closures/re-openings of the move discussion was being reverted ) that you were involving yourself in an edit war. That is, your reversion at the page was still disruptive, and will hopefully be the last in the series. You should also know better to spend more time trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion; two comments (including at the ANI which discussed these reversions) just before making your reversion did not suffice.

Essentially this is feedback to you as an editor about just one situation you were involved in. Although I am not bothered about whether you formally include it in your editor review or not, I do hope that you will take this on board and avoid unecessarily becoming an active involved participant in these sorts of situations in future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I counted 6 votes to keep the move open, vs 7 to close. Thus, clear consensus to close it early, right, because someone's feelings might get hurt? What a sham demonstration of bullying admins protecting their own, supervoting and pushing their POV. It's embarrassing for the wiki. I'm waiting to see how these warriors take on the many hundreds of pages with "wife of", "daughter of", "son of", "husband of", "father of", "mother of", in the title. Ah, wait, they won't bother? It comes down to these symbolic acts, vs real change. Just like so many expressed righteous outrage at the ghettoization of women novelists, and then did exactly fuck all to fix it for non-American, non-white novelists once the storm had passed. Do you know I still find, every day, category trees that are fully ghettoized by gender, or ethnicity? Every day. When I nominate the policy-non-compliant ones for deletion (those that can only serve to ghettoize), people launch into personal attacks. I de-ghettoize trees all the time, and do you know who helps me? (crickets) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

They blatantly ignore policy and consensus (or lack thereof) to justify their preferences. It's an outrage. Reminds me of grade school. --B2C 16:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

While it might be your personal view that true serious disruption involves or is limited to the article space, the fact that behavioral policies and guidelines have been effected by the Community for all pages on Misplaced Pages should indicate to you that true serious disruption is not limited to the article space and extends to talk pages too.

Yes, a talk page is a venue where discussions occur so that a consensus can be reached on Misplaced Pages, but as you would have read from my comment, the policy against edit-warring applies to any page on Misplaced Pages. If you felt that an action to close a discussion on the article talk page was disruptive, or you were not happy with the conflict evident from the edit-war, or you yourself had a dispute that there was or was not consensus, you are expected to comply with policies and guidelines by utilising Misplaced Pages dispute resolution. The fact is: you chose not to.

To make matters worse, you also chose to actively breach policies and guidelines by engaging in battleground behaviour. This is evident from your incivility or inflammatory bad faith accusations/assumptions about other contributors (even in your comment above), and when you prolonged or participated in the edit war in the fashion I described above - and to be even clearer than in my comment above, your reversion to reopen the discussion was not exempt from the policy against edit-warring. This type of conduct is disruptive to the editing atmosphere and to the project.

Of course, you may disagree with the behavioral requirements imposed on you through these policies and guidelines, or the extent of the disruption caused by breaching the same. If that's the case, you can seek a community consensus to change the policies and guidelines. However, if you fail to adhere to the requirements in the meantime, your account may end up blocked or you may be banned from the project. Although I personally hope you will voluntarily make changes to your approach very soon so that neither would be necessary, it's beyond my control whether you actually do or not. Being an uninvolved user, I actually have no preference on what is happening with that article. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

For crying out loud. I'm just trying to work with others to arrive at a consensus decision on that title. WE ARE THE ONES BEING DISRUPTED. Why are you not concerned about THAT???? --B2C 20:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

b2c, over there - a suggestion - plz stop responding to the troll - otherwise it will be hard to have a fruitful evaluation of other options. Thanks--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You say that there would have been no edit-warring in this case if nobody had tried to suppress discussion, but the fact is, that reason does not make the edit-warring acceptable. Editwarring policy expressly says when it is acceptable to editwar, and this is not one of them. If you use that reason again in future to participate in an edit war, and your action is made in good faith, you still are at strong risk of being sanctioned for it. I think my attempts to make you and the others understand why to avoid that behaviour (and warn about the risks associated with that approach) are not disrespectful. In fact, my attempts weren't intended to be disrespectful either.

However, if you disagree, then the next appropriate step for you (and for that matter, any/all of the other users who were involved in this incident or who were slapped with a trout) to seek further input about my conduct using the appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms. I have faith that the community would agree that your disappointment was unjustified, and that as I've said, while you may have had the best of intentions (good faith), your behavior is still unacceptable for the reasons specified above.

As to why, policy does indeed say that if a bold action is reverted (BR), there should be discussion (D) - but it also says that is not appropriate to continue a series of reverts to reinstate or maintain some sort of status quo in the meantime. What I am suggesting is not BRBRBR as you indicate; what happened was simply BRRRRR. If the last reversion to re-open or close the discussion was unacceptable to you or any other user, yes it is concerning, and you would need to seek dispute resolution in order to build consensus. That is what is encouraged in policy, and is what is being encouraged in practice. The use of reverts is expressly discouraged in practice, in the same way that it is discouraged in policy. There was nothing to justify the rate at which reversions were made, and each of them was disruptive to the editing environment. If you don't agree with the policy in that you think it's wrong or you think "no one should be penalized", then you are achieving nothing by telling me about it; you need to (as I already indicated in my last reply) seek a community consensus to change the policy. In the meantime, by simply refusing to comply with it or ignoring it, you risk being sanctioned. It really is that simple. Good luck. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Look, you're technically correct about reverting a discussion close as being "edit warring". But that's quintessential WP:Wikilawyering. The rules against edit warring were created to encourage discussion to develop consensus instead of changing content back and forth pointlessly. To apply rules against edit warring against someone trying to continue discussion to develop consensus is turning that underlying principle on its head. It's rewarding those who seek to suppress discussion, the exact opposite of the spirit if not the letter of this rule. Now is it possible for an admin to ignore this point and find someone in violation of edit warring in such a case? Of course. Sadly so, but there it is. BS like turning pro-consensus-development-via-discussion rules upside down to penalize those trying to develop consensus via discussion is ruining WIkipedia.

Yes, the use of reverts is expressly discouraged in practice, in order to encourage discussion. So a revert to re-open a discussion should be exempted from this rule, per IAR (because it improves WP to do so) until it's explicitly stated. --B2C 20:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Where concision is not key

Born2cycle, you wrote:

There is no primary topic. The actress is far too notable to be ignored in that calculus.

But to distinguish this Sarah Brown from the others, We can't use Sarah Brown (Briton) because the politician is also British. What about Sarah Brown (British philanthropist), per recognizability? Anyone familiar with her might not recognize her from "Sarah Brown (philanthropist)" alone, but British philanthropist makes it pretty obvious. --B2C 17:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I've read this a few times, and am almost amazed. Were you serious (I think so, you are not known for jokes or sarcasm)? You are suggesting a more descriptive, less concise "Sarah Brown (British philanthropist)" over "Sarah Brown (philanthropist)" and others, on a consensus-building discussion not reading straight from policy. The suggestion also breaks WP:NATURAL.

In any case, you suggest "British" makes the title more recognizable, sufficiently more so to be worth the extra word? Is this because Sarah Brown the philanthropist is only well recognized in a British context? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Good catch! Thanks for paying attention! Yeah, I'm assuming (please correct me if I'm wrong) that she is not particularly well-known as a philanthropist, even for those who are familiar with her, but somehow "British philanthropist" will make it clear that it is that Sarah Brown. Besides, the relatively famous actress might be a philanthropist too, but she's not British.

But this whole case is a cluster - the current title is already entirely based on IAR. Obi has convinced me any other title is better, even if it still relies on IAR, just less. We just can't seem to find consensus on a title without relying on IAR, so we're trying to find one now that depends on IAR less than the current title does. --B2C 20:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Good. I don't understand why this discussion should be so difficult. So many people (this time not including you) are refusing to compromise to others' objections. Consensus building requires compromise to make your opponents less unhappy. Consensus building is not compatible with anyone firmly insisting that any position is "right" or "wrong".

On IAR. The best way to follow IAR is to make no mention of IAR, but to cite the reason directly. To quote WP:IAR, to attempt to justify through the rule IAR, is to fundamentally misunderstand the meaning of IAR. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

LOL! Citing IAR is not IARing! --B2C 05:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Exactly! Good reasons do not need to be couched in terms of written rules. See also Misplaced Pages:The rules are principles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

smokey I must respectfully disagree. IAR is a policy, a very carefully worded one, that says IAR if the rule prevents you from improving the wiki. If you can't cite the rule you're breaking, and more importantly if you can't demonstrate why your ignoring of rules improves the wiki, you've missed the point of IAR. People will often say 'do it my preferred way per IAR' but fail to mention in what way their way is better than ways which follow the rules. If you're going to IAR, or even IOR, you need to make a case that the wiki is BETTER by ignoring that rule vs following it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Obi-Wan, yes, you have been using the "per IAR" language. And you are right in saying that you should be able to cite the rule to break, although IAR also covers cases where the rules are inadequate or undeveloped. In the SJB case, the WP:AT rules seems inadequate. Also note that I have recently been harsh in criticism of B2C, and I mean to offer compliments on what I see as positive contribution to consensus building, and discussing benefits directly. (no comment on the discussion closings edit warring fuss). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

re SJB I agree - which is why I made the case to IAR and move to simply SB. That way we're only ignoring one rule (primary topic), not many, and the wiki is ultimately much better because readers will be easily guided to the right SB via hatnotes. I haven't yet been able to bring other people to see that POV...SJB is an example of IAR that is worse, not better, as the reader now sees before him a title that no reliable source has ever used - this title change has also made it harder to find SB in Misplaced Pages, and changed search result rankings for all other Sarah Jane browns... I think it's a textbook example of misuse of IAR in titling decisions...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Fyi

I (and I think you) have just been publically smeared by Tarc on Jimbo's talk page for daring to participate in controversial move requests.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

That says something about Tarc and nothing about us. Ignoring. --B2C 20:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

WHAT IF the title was Hillary Clinton?

What if the title of this article was Hillary Clinton?

Would there be a strong policy-based argument to change the title to Hillary Rodham Clinton?

I think not. In fact, that's key to why I think the title should be changed, so that we would finally get to a stable title (Hillary Clinton) that meets policy better than any reasonable alternative (HC is better per policy than HRC simply — because HC is preferred to HRC by WP:CONCISE, and HRC is not preferred over HC by any WP:CRITERIA).

But I'm open to the possibility that I might be wrong; that there might be a strong policy-based argument to move HRC to HC. Am I wrong? What would that argument be?

Give us your best shot. --B2C 01:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

B2C, the title is stable. Omnedon (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, this sounds like a move discussion. Other policy points were mooted last time. Let's save this debate for the move review analysis of what policies were presented.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Born2cycle drop the stick and back away from the horse's carcass.--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Omnedon, defenders of the status quo at Yoghurt proclaimed, repeatedly, that that title was stable too. Indeed it was stable (depending on how you define "stable"), but it was never-the-less controversial. What settled that controversy was moving to a title that best met policy (ignorning TITLECHANGES because that's moot to the question of whether there is any good policy-based argument for moving A→B). If indeed HC is the title here that best meets policy, then the controversy over this article title should also be settled by changing the title to HC. So, that's a reasonable question to ask, to anyone legitimately interested in ending the controversy. --B2C 01:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not a move discussion. It's a thought experiment. Yes, if no one can come up with a good policy-based argument for a hypothetical HC to HRC move proposal, that fact would be useful in a future move proposal. But this discussion in and of itself, in this section, is not in any way a move discussion. (Okay, I'm done here - but I am curious to see if anyone can meet the challenge presented here). --B2C 01:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

"Hillary Clinton" is not the title used by the vast majority of reliable biographies, "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is. See also other teriary sources. Is it good that all Misplaced Pages content follows the best sources. Anything else is dangerous WP:OR. The title is the most prominent of the content. If new editors see that titles need not follow sources, they may deduce that other content need not follow sources. All Misplaced Pages writers and editors should know that all content should be derived from, and influenced by, the best sources. The best sources are reputably published reliable secondary sources. Minimalist titling, such as advocated by B2C, requires deviation from following best sources, and has no benefit to readers. Following the titling used by sources has benefits of consistency and predicatability, both for readers and editors. This section is a pseudo RM discussion, and should be closed on the basis of "too soon" and because it makes no extension on previous discussions. I suggest moving this discussion to User_talk:Born2cycle. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

(the above moved from Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton) --B2C 01:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

"Hillary Clinton" is not the title used by the vast majority of reliable biographies, "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is.

What is the basis for this claim, SmokeyJoe?

The List_of_books_by_or_about_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton suggests even usage in biography titles is split much closer to 50/50. "Hillary Rodham Clinton" occurs 48 times on that page, however 6 of those are not in titles, so 42 in titles. Hillary Clinton occurs in 31 titles. 42 of 73 (42+31) is 57% - that hardly constitutes a "vast majority".

Moreover, even if there was a strong majority of HRC usage in biography titles, there is no indication in consensus as reflected in policy or practice that such biography title usage should be given priority over other Reliable Source usage. So how is this a policy-based argument favoring HRC over HC at all, much less a strong one? --B2C 20:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The books that are "scholarly" should be up weighted as better reliable sources. The biographies are authoritative reliable sources, and should be weighted highly, unless a case is made that they are non-independent and biased. "Personal preference", as evidenced by how she authors her own publications, should be a consideration. News reports, running commentaries (they assume the subject is already introduced) and primary sources should be unimportant in the face of independent reliable secondary sources. Somehow, titling policy is disconnected to these principles of the project. Do you notice how when the wider community gets involved, titling policy and guidelines (and similarly MOS pages) are given little weight on the basis of what they say? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, these are all assertions which reflect your personal opinion rather than community consensus as reflected in policy or practice:

1. "The books that are 'scholarly' should be up weighted as better reliable sources."
2. "The biographies are authoritative reliable sources , and should be weighted highly, unless a case is made that they are non-independent and biased".
3. "'Personal preference'", as evidenced by how she authors her own publications, should be a consideration."
4. "News reports, running commentaries (they assume the subject is already introduced) and primary sources should be unimportant in the face of independent reliable secondary sources."

Have you considered that there are good reasons for why consensus and titling policy "is disconnected to these principles of the project?" (I recognize that these are principles, but know of no evidence that indicates they are principles of the project).

And no, I have not noticed that "titling policy and guidelines (and similarly MOS pages) are given little weight on the basis of what they say" when "when the wider community gets involved". When that happens, which often includes reliance on novel "principles" (the hallmark of which is that people rely on them only in situations where they happen to support their personal preference, and ignore them when they don't), it's almost always an emotionally charged situation for one reason or another, whether it's the defense of the h in yoghurt, etc. But that's precisely when we should be letting our policies guide us, rather than succumb to the whims of emotion.

In any case, thanks for confirming that even your argument is not a strong one based in policy. This is why a move to HC will settle the controversy over this title - as it will eliminate the possibility of any new move proposals being made per a strong policy-based argument, since at HC the article will finally be at the title best supported by policy. --B2C 22:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I consider you to have a flawed reading of policy and practice, skewed by your very particular mission of minimalist titling. Your pursuit of this mission has influenced documented policy, and actual practice, but rather than influencing consensus, I believe you have pushed a false consensus and created controversy.

(#2). You doubt that reliable sources should be weighted higher than unreliable sources?

I do not know if you have read anything listed at Misplaced Pages:Principles. Have you? "The project" means "Misplaced Pages", but sometimes includes Wikimedia and sister projects.

What you call "novel principles" I expect are principles that you don't understand. You would have to be more specific. In any case, that you left discussions without understanding what others stated were principles speaks to how superficially you listen to others.

You massively over-interpret the meaning of the yog(h)urt case. On the choice, there was no consensus, except that where there is no consensus, WP:RETAIN applies. It took a long time to cut through the noise.

My argument is as strong as the principle that Misplaced Pages relies on reliable sources. You, with regards to minimalist titling, are pushing for something different, and where it conflicts with respecting reliable sources, it is offensive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I presume your misunderstanding is not deliberate. No, I DON'T DOUBT THAT RELIABLE SOURCES SHOULD BE WEIGHTED HIGHER THAN UNRELIABLE SOURCES. Why on Earth would you interpret anything I said as that? Not only is that offensive, it's just being (never mind). Let me explain it to you in the simplest terms possible. Apparently that's necessary. Your #2 principle states:

"The biographies are authoritative reliable sources, and should be weighted highly, unless a case is made that they are non-independent and biased".

The clause I flagged as needing citation was:

and should be weighted highly, which is referring to authoritative reliable sources.

IN THE CONTEXT OF TITLE DECISION MAKING there is no distinction made by consensus (as reflected in policy, guidelines, and practice) between usage in "authoritative reliable sources" (your term) and other reliable sources. Your artificial separation of reliable sources, in the context of title decision-making, is novel and unprecedented. You believe usage in what you call "authoritative reliable sources" should be weighted higher than usage in other reliable sources, including "News reports, running commentaries and primary sources", which you believe "should be unimportant".

What I doubt is not that reliable sources should be weighted higher than unreliable sources. What I doubt is that, in the context of title decision-making, that usage in "authoritative reliable sources" should be weighted higher than usage in other reliable sources, like "News reports, running commentaries and primary sources" (as if news reports, running commentaries in books, journals, newspapers, and other RS, and primary sources, are not "authoritative"). I've never seen anyone else argue this in any of the hundreds if not thousands of RM discussions I have participated in, certainly not in the context of determining which title is indicated by WP:COMMONNAME.

Now, it's probably not often that usage in these two types of reliable sources indicates a different title for a given topic, so relevant cases are going to be difficult to find. But I bet much more often than not in such cases that the project favors the title indicated by usage in all reliable sources, rather than the title favored by usage in just your cherry-picked and vaguely defined "authoritative reliable sources". --B2C 17:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Sarah Brown

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Sarah Brown 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—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, 131.111.185.66 (talk) 03:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Clarissa Eden

I was wondering whether you were going to show up in that discussion. It took you longer than I expected. Cheers. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to give me a head's up on any RM where you'd like me to take a look. --B2C 21:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to be accused of WP:CANVASSING, and there are topics on which we seem to commonly disagree. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I think such comments are well protected from CANVASSING allegations by WP:CANVASSING#Appropriate notification:

An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:

• ...
• ...
• On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:
  • Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article
  • Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
  • Editors known for expertise in the field
  • Editors who have asked to be kept informed

--B2C 23:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

New signature

For the record, I object. Don't hide. Dicklyon (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hostility

Also for the record, your contributions to the discussion at WT:Article titles#Non-English titles is becoming increasingly offensive and hostile. Not only do you resort to profanity, but you also claim such things as "reasonable people cannot disagree about this." This is symptomatic of the issues that have been brought to your attention over and over. Please, as has been requested multiple times at your review, try to be more tolerant of opinions with which you disagree. Omnedon (talk) 02:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)