User talk:Aervanath

Seeking info re your closing of the DRV on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_May_5#File:Phillipbrutus.jpg

Thank you for taking the time to plow through this DRV and the sources cited. Could you please expand on your reasoning, with a few sentences providing more detail? You wrote: "The consensus is that the file in question has not been proven to be public domain".

I expected to see a no consensus close. A dozen or so folks are not part of that consensus, per the DRV. A few posters with views on either side of the public domain question posted to the DRV page.

Given

1. the effort many people put into the DRV - on both sides - and

2. the fact that many other images have been and can be expected to be subject to debate because of the exact same issue, some of which were ruled public domain per PD-FLGov, and

3. I provided a detailed argument for why it is in the public domain and would like to know where it falls short ("Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the "logic" (point of view) of the majority." is a quote from WP:Consensus ) and

4. a DRV is supposed to be closed by weighing the arguments - my purpose in calling for the DRV was mainly to see if I could build WP:Consensus regarding this class of images, (WP:NOTAVOTE), so I'd like to know which arguments you did and did not find compelling,

I don't think significantly more detail too much to ask for... (Please expand the reasoning in [1]the DRV itself] (or here). Note: I have no intention of continuing/reopening the discussion, or beating a dead horse, but do seek a more substantive explanation. I'm not trying to make you change your mind; I want to hear what you think so that I and other editors can come to a common understanding.)--Elvey (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry it took me so long to reply. After going back and reviewing the discussion, my impression is (and was) that you failed to convince other editors that the original deletion was invalid. In order for a deletion decision to be overturned at DRV, there needs to be a consensus to do so; this necessarily implies that other editors have been convinced by your arguments, or supply other arguments to the discussion that support your desired result. However, this did not happen; you were the only one arguing for undeletion, and it was quite clear that no other editors agreed with your point of view. Hope that expands on my rationale a bit more. Cheers,--Aervanath (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I provided the names of a dozen others who agreed with me, but they argued elsewhere than on the DRV page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_12#Template:FLGovernment: (Dcoetzee, JPG-GR) etc.) These other users did supply other arguments to the discussion that supported my desired result. I had expected a closer would have followed or counted or considered their (and my) views, rather than simply counted the votes, which is what your statement indicates you did. ("you failed to convince", "you were the only one"). No reply needed. --Elvey (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I had to evaluate the discussion as it was. And while discussions are not supposed to be votes, there's no possible way, without a strong overriding basis in policy, for an administrator to close a discussion in a manner that has only been advocated by one participant in that discussion. That would not be in keeping with WP:Consensus.--Aervanath (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samantha Orobator

Curious about your relisting here, which on its face seems contrary to WP:RELIST: the discussion was sufficiently visited and widely considered the policies implicated, and no information was presented late in the debate that would tend to require those having already !voted to reconsider their positions. I imagine that I'm missing something, and if you might, when you've a moment, tell me what it is, I should be appreciative. Thanks, Joe 04:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, when I first read the discussion, there was no consensus. The reason I relisted instead is because I felt that there was an option that hadn't been considered yet. You'll notice that I added a !vote immediately after the relist, suggesting a merger to Human rights in Laos. Since this option hadn't been discussed at all, I felt that a relist was appropriate in order to gain input on that further option, since there didn't seem to be a consensus to keep or delete at that time. Obviously no one else went for my suggestion, and the later input was mostly in favor of deletion, but at least the discussion did reach consensus in the end, which it wouldn't have if I hadn't relisted it. So I think that this case was an exception to the WP:RELIST guideline.--Aervanath (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I don't know, though, that one's relisting in order that he/she might offer an option as yet unconsidered is appropriate or consistent with policy and practice; it would have been better, I imagine, if you'd offered the merge suggestion as a !vote and then left for a different, uninvolved closer the matter of determining whether relisting to permit discussion of your proposal should be in order. Although I am concerned that your relisting might have had the effect of transforming what would have been a no consensus (one that probably would have defaulted to keep, although a closing admin might have invoked the "relatively unknown, avolitionally public" provision of WP:DP#Deletion discussion [that, though, it is likelier than not, I think, have been overturned in favor of "no consensus; default to keep" at DRV]) into a delete, I certainly won't take the matter to DRV, and I surely recognize that this is a practically trivial issue, one in which your actions were not unreasonable, that should not be belabored; I mean only to suggest that should a similar issue present itself in the future, you might want to handle it a bit differently. Cheers, Joe 21:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I'll take it into account in the future. I actually did think of the concerns you have stated when I did the relist, but at the time I thought that the additional discussion would be more valuable than a "no consensus" close; call it an application of WP:IAR, I guess. I usually don't do things like that, anyway; this was definitely the exception to the rule. I appreciate the input. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Military history of the peoples of the British Islands

Hi, you recently removed the WP:RM and left an odd/interesting comment. You stated that if the AfD failed, you would move the article. Correct policy is that if a move request fails, then the article remains at its current title. If you've deleted the move request, then the move request failed. We're now onto a different processs, an AfD. When you say you will "move it back to the last stable name", what, in your opinion, is the "last stable name"? This is all a bit odd... --HighKing (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

After a long discussion on Wikipedia talk:Requested moves, Wikipedia:Moving_guidelines_for_administrators was changed to read:

...sometimes a requested move results from opposition to a recent bold move from a long existing name that cannot be undone. Where there is no consensus on these types of moves, discretionarily the article should be moved back to the prior default name...

In this case, the "last stable name" would be Military history of the peoples of the British Isles, which was its location when you initially filed the move request.--Aervanath (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No. My move request was filed to return the article prior to the first bold move which put it at the British Isles title. My move request was to reverse that move. No other move request has been filed. Please note that the editor that performed that move to British Isles was very aware that his article move was controversial as he had been involved in a number of very controversial edits on the same subject at around the same time. Therefore to implement policy, my failed move request would result in the article being moved back to the stable title of Military history of the island of Britain. I repeat, there were no other move requests filed. Policy does not mention what should happen when an AfD fails, but it seems in this case that you have misinterpreted the timelines and the process. There is nothing in the new policy that supports returning the title to the "British Isles" title, as this controversial move is what kicked off this fuss in the first place. BTW, note that the original title of Military history of the island of Britain still links to the new article. Also note that all of the prior article titles such as British military history point to the latest title. None of these redirects would be correct if it pointed to the British Isles - it is clear what the original intent of the article creator was. --HighKing (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The first "bold move" took place on 27 Sep 2008; there was not a single objection to it, until that of User:HighKing on 14 May 2009. Prior to that, on 1 Feb 2009 HighKing had enquired as to the possibility of another move. From 14 May 2009 the debate unfolded and there was clearly no consensus for any further move. Regardless, another "bold move" occurred to take the article to its present title; there were many objections to this move. It is this more recent "bold move" that is at issue. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The policy states that the article may discretionarily be put back to the "last stable name", which in this case is Military history of the island of Britain. This was the last move which was stable, was done according to proper procedure, and had consensus on the Talk page. --HighKing (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Timeline of this article title:

1. 2003-2007: British military history (duration: approx. 42 months)
2. February 17, 2007: moved to Military history of the United Kingdom by User:Bastin (bold move, no discussion on talk page) (duration: approx. 14 months)
3. April 15, 2008: moved to Military history of the peoples of Britain by User:Fishiehelper2 (proposed on talk page, moved after no reply, discussed on talk page after the fact, but not moved back) (duration: approx. 5 months)
4. September 27, 2008: moved to Military history of the peoples of the British Isles by User:Setanta747 (bold move, no discussion on talk page) (duration: approx. 9 months)
5. February 1, 2009: User:HighKing suggests move to Military history of the people of Britain on talk page; User:LemonMonday objects in support of Military history of the peoples of the British Isles; no move occurs
6. May 14, 2009: User:HighKing proposes formal request for move to Military history of the United Kingdom (discussion still ongoing)
7. May 20, 2009, at 13:26 UTC: moved to Military history of the peoples of the British Islands by User:Purple Arrow (bold move, no discussion on talk page)
8. May 20, 2009, at 14:07 UTC: moved to Military history of the peoples of the British Isles by User:LevenBoy
9. May 20, 2009, at 14:13 UTC: moved to Military history of the peoples of the British Islands by User:Purple Arrow
10. May 20, 2009, at 22:09 UTC: article move-protected by User:Cirt

Since all of the moves prior to Setanta747's move were also "out of process", I see no reason to single out his move as somehow more objectionable than the others, and it has lasted longer than the title which he moved it from. Therefore it seems clear to me that Military history of the peoples of the British Isles is the most recent stable name. My hope, of course, is that this debate over what the most recent stable name was will become moot by either the result of the Afd or further discussion on the talk page.--Aervanath (talk) 05:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason why Setanta747's move is *more objectionable* that all the others is because of the use of the term "British Isles" in the title. If you check on Setanta747's history, you will find that he was a proud Irish and British editor that sometimes got on the wrong side of policy with passionate editing. He was well aware of the controversy of using particular names, and the policy of same. For example, not long after this article move, he moved Flag of Ireland to Flag of the Republic of Ireland which caused uproar and was swiftly moved back. He also participated in the British military history taskforce and would have been aware of discussions there. This discussion clearly outlines an earlier decision to separate the British military history from Irish.

It is irrelevant that Setanta747's move wasn't noticed for a while - that was his entire intention to *not* follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies for contentious moves. Policy clearly states that contentious page moves must have a WP:RM filed, and if Setanta747 followed policy, this would have come to the attention of the proper audience and a proper discussion held.

I'd also like you to reply to the point I make about the guidelines you are interpreting and trying to apply. The guideline state that if a Bold move results in a subsequent move request that fails, then an administrator may use some discretion and move it back to the prior default name where it had been for a long time. The move request was mine to move the article back to Military history of the United Kingdom. The bold move was Setanta747's, moving the article to Military history of the peoples of the British Isles. Therefore the prior default name where it had been for a long time is the one previous to Setanta747's.

Finally, discretion on this matter must surely make it obvious that moving it back to Setanta747 title will reward an editor for not following process. I don't believe that the spirit of the administrator guidelines extends that far. --HighKing (talk) 10:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

And yet, I find it curious that you think moving the article back to Military history of the peoples of Britain wouldn't "reward an editor for not following process", since NONE of the moves up until Setanta747's were "in-process" moves. There were three bold moves in the history of the article, of which Setanta's was only the last. I think that you have hit the crux of the matter with your statement that

The reason why Setanta747's move is *more objectionable* that all the others is because of the use of the term "British Isles" in the title.

You disagree with the use of this term, and so object to the move as out-of-process. However, WP:RM is not a required process. You will find that a requirement to use WP:RM does not exist anywhere in Wikipedia guideline or policy. The only requirement is that article renames should enjoy a consensus. Editors are encouraged to be bold and make moves to the titles that they see as appropriate. If no one objects, then silence implies consensus. Setanta747's title was stable for nine months, which is longer than the one prior to it, so whether or not you find it objectionable, that is its proper title until there is a consensus to move it. As I said, I hope there will be a consensus to do that soon, and I think that your efforts would be more profitably turned in that direction rather than debating with me over this.--Aervanath (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no history on Wikipedia to show that using the term "Britain" is contentious. There is enormous evidence that the term "British Isles" is contentious. What's more, Setanta747 was very aware of that. Therefore there is a very real difference between being bold and being sneaky. You appear to be trying to argue that the move to the "British Isles" title would not have been a controversial move, or perhaps that Setanta747 would not have been of that opinion. Please review Setanta747's history of editing and you will clearly see that he was well aware of the contentious nature of the term, especially within articles and article titles. Silence means nothing especially when nobody seems to have seen or commented on the edit until I did.

Also, policy states

In some situations the appropriateness of a move may be under dispute, and discussion is necessary in order to reach a consensus.

And the policy goes on to provide 3 steps for that process:

1. Step 1 — Add move template to talk page
2. Step 2 — Create a place for discussion
3. Step 3 — Add the request to the "Other proposals" list

It seems to me that WP:RM is part of the required process for contentious title moves.

I'm also awaiting your response to my pointing out that the Guidelines you refer to would not allow you to move the title back to the British Isles title. The move request I filed makes the "British Isles" title the contentious title, and therefore the previous title is the prior default name. --HighKing (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I have already stated my position quite clearly, and I feel no need to further justify it. I disagree that filing a move request automatically makes anything "contentious". How long would the move have to go unnoticed for it to qualify as an uncontroversial move? The title which you prefer was only there for five months, and was also an out-of-process move. I have reviewed Setanta747's history, and I agree that he has performed contentious edits in the past. However, looking at the other moves he has made, I see no pattern of inserting "British Isles" in titles of articles; in fact, this is the only move he made that involved that phrase, and I see no pattern in his move log that would imply that he has a history of "sneaky moves". The default name remains what it was before you filed your move request.--Aervanath (talk) 02:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate we have different points of view on this, and I respect you taking the time to help me understand your position better. But I also expect you to be reasonable. In light of your recent reply, it appears that you have merely entrenched your position. I believe we will need to get another opinion on this. BTW, I did not state that filing a move request automatically make anything "contentious". Instead I was pointing out that the policy for moving articles states that that a move request must be made for contentious moves. I also pointed out that Setanta747 was well aware of that his move request would have required a move request. Also, I did not state that Setanta747 had a history of inserting "British Isles" into titles, but he was aware of the contentious area involving Irish articles including the terms "Republic of Ireland" and "British Isles". In fact, it's impossible for any Irish/British editor that edits either of those types of articles to be unaware of it. Furthermore, there was a big edit war revolving around "British Isles" articles at that time, and it resulted in an ArbCom involvement less than a month later. That's the first point. The 2nd point is that your administrator guidelines do not give you scope for moving the article back to the "British Isles" title.

If objections have been raised, then the discussion should be evaluated just like any other discussion on Wikipedia: lack of consensus normally means that no change happens. However, sometimes a requested move results from opposition to a recent bold move from a long existing name that cannot be undone. Where there is no consensus on these types of moves, discretionarily the article should be moved back to the prior default name where it had been for a long time to set the playing field back to even.

Nowhere here are you given scope for returning the article to the "British Isles" title. No consensus exists to move it from the current "British islands" title, no consensus exists either for keeping it there, equally no consensus exists for the "British Isles" title, and no consensus exists for moving it. The closest we have for consensus is to move it back to a previous uncontentious title. I would think that discretion in this instance should tell you to avoid instability. Also, all the moves made can be reversed though, from a technical point of view, so your guidelines give you no reason to get involved. All content matters can be solved by the involved editors once consensus has been reached. It would set a dangerous precedent for an administrator to rule on content in this way, without consensus. --HighKing (talk) 10:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

<--I'm another admin\WP:RM regular, and I've been watching this discussion for a couple of days now. Aervanath is completely right when he said that when a move request to reverse an undiscussed bold move ends in no consensus, the general "policy" (in the non WP sense) is to move it back to the long-standing title. You yourself quote the line from the moving instructions that states as much. You can say that the "British Isles" was not the long-standing name all you want, but that doesn't make it so. 9 months is a pretty long time for someone to raise an objection to the new title. If you are not drawing that conclusion from the block of text you are quoting, then perhaps we need to reword it so that you do. Your last point doesn't make sense; you requested the move through WP:RM. You asked for an admin to get involved in the matter. You shouldn't cry foul when the admin disagrees with your position. Parsecboy (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Parsecboy, thank you for getting involved and providing your opinion. I believe you misunderstand the situation. Chronologically, the sequence of events is a little confusing. Explanation below. --HighKing (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the situation is pretty clear to me, the move log is easy enough to follow. Referring to the numbered list Aervanath posted above, #7, this move, is the "recent bold move", not the move to "British Isles" 9 months ago. Any controversial move from that title had to be discussed (not necessarily through WP:RM though); Tfz moved the page despite the ongoing discussion that had not yet reached a conclusion. Therefore, if the page is kept and there is no consensus for either the current title ("British Islands") or another, the page should default back to "British Isles", since that was the last stable name—namely, because the move to "British Islands" wouldn't have even happened if Tfz had followed procedure wrt the move process (i.e., don't move a page until the discussion has ended with a consensus to do so). And then we wouldn't have had a problem :) Parsecboy (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

So which guidelines are you looking at? Cos they're not the same ones that I'm looking at which apply to move requests that have been filed.... --HighKing (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The same ones you're looking at and quoting:

"If objections have been raised, then the discussion should be evaluated just like any other discussion on Wikipedia: lack of consensus normally means that no change happens. However, sometimes a requested move results from opposition to a recent bold move from a long existing name that cannot be undone. Where there is no consensus on these types of moves, discretionarily the article should be moved back to the prior default name where it had been for a long time to set the playing field back to even."

Moves that are 9 months old definitely do not fall under the "recent bold move" category; on the other hand, the move performed by Tfz last week certainly does. Had the request not been superseded by the AfD, it would most likely have been closed as "No consensus," and Tfz's move reversed. That is all in accordance with Wikipedia:Moving guidelines for administrators. Parsecboy (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Once again, which guidelines are you looking at? The guidelines are for move requests that have been filed. The only move request that has been filed is mine, looking to overturn the "British Isles" move request. Your interpretation appear s to be trying to reverse a move request without consensus. I understand what you are saying - I just disagree that the guidelines (with admin discretion) would allow you to move the title back to "British Isles". --HighKing (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The article was at Military history of the peoples of the British Isles; you requested that the article be moved to Military history of the peoples of Britain. During the discussion, Tfz moved the page to the current title (the "recent bold move"). Since the move request would have likely resulted in a "no consensus" closure, the page should have defaulted to the last stable name—the "British Isles" version. That is standard operating procedure at WP:RM, and outlined in the guideline page we have now both quoted. Parsecboy (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope. If a move request had been filed after the "British Islands" title you'd be correct. The guidelines do not appear to include a case where a move request is then followed by a bold move (and then an AfD). It's the other way around in terms of order where it's bold move followed by move request. --HighKing (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that when a bold move has achieved "stability" (i.e., it's been around for more than a few weeks, numerous editors have come and gone without objecting, etc.) it has the same status of a properly filed and closed move request, at least de facto, if not de jure. It no longer is a "recent bold move"; it's a just a "bold move" that, through lack of objection over a long period of time, has achieved some form of consensus. That there was no move request after the "British Islands" move is irrelevant. The move was made in the midst of a discussion that by no means would have ended in support for that title; it should therefore have been reversed at the closure of the request (granted the AfD had not been filed). Parsecboy (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Parsecboy has pretty much stated exactly what I've been thinking, HighKing: somehow you and I are reading the exact same block of text and getting opposite interpretations from it. I'm sorry you feel that I've "merely entrenched my position"; in fairness to me, you haven't changed your position during this discussion, either. :) I'm not sure what more we can reasonably say to each other on this topic. I've read your last post two or three times now, and I still disagree with your position. There is actually nothing in policy that says move requests must be filed; it is just generally advisable. I would go through your last post and refute it sentence by sentence, but I would generally just be repeating what I said in my previous replies. I realize you're probably going to feel like I'm giving you a brush-off by not responding in detail, and I apologize for that. I'm just not sure how to reply to you without repeating what I've already said. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Well the important thing is we're not falling out over it :-) You are correct that in one place it states clearly that move requests don't have to be filed, but policy states elsewhere that In some situations the appropriateness of a move may be under dispute, and discussion is necessary in order to reach a consensus. Further on it states If the move you are suggesting is uncontroversial and technically possible, please feel free to move the page yourself and points out If there has been any past debate about the best title for the page, or if anyone could reasonably disagree with the move, then treat it as controversial. So what's the policy for "controversial". Well, in the helpfile for moving, it states In several cases, you should list pages that you want to have renamed / moved at Wikipedia:Requested moves, especially if you believe the move might be controversial. So it seems clear to me that all controversial moves should be listed.

As to the interpretation of the guidelines, as I said above, I want to be sure that we're clear on the chronology of things. For handiness, here's the full paragraph from the guidelines (bolding is mine):

Determining consensus on requested moves is somewhat of a contentious area. In general, there is a consensus that there is no minimum participation required. This isn't like articles for deletion, where lack of participation requires relisting. For most moves, there is no need to make a request at all; the need for requesting the move arises only because of a technical limitation resulting from the target article name existing as a redirect with more than one edit. Thus, if no one has objected, go ahead and perform the move as requested unless it is patently out of keeping with naming conventions or otherwise is in clear conflict with policy. If objections have been raised, then the discussion should be evaluated just like any other discussion on Wikipedia: lack of consensus normally means that no change happens'. However, sometimes a requested move results from opposition to a recent bold move from a long existing name that cannot be undone. Where there is no consensus on these types of moves, 'discretionarily the article should be moved back to the prior default name where it had been for a long time to set the playing field back to even. If a discussion is ongoing or has not reached a reasonable conclusion, relist it.

This is in relation to move requests that have been filed, not AfD's or other processes. So the chronology of events:

• Title at "British military history"
• Title at "UK"
• Title at "Britain" (the prior default name where it had been for a long time)
• Title at "British Isles" (the recent bold move)
• Move request filed to return to "UK" or "British miliary history" (the requested move resulting from opposition to a recent bold move)
• Article moved to "British islands"
• AfD filed

The guidelines above are in relation to consensus on a filed moved request.

The guidelines are for determining consensus for move requests. No move request has been filed since "British islands", only an AfD. BTW, my move request has been deemed to have failed and the AfD process has now superceded it. What you are proposing to do would only make sense if the move request was filed *after* the move to "British islands" *and* if the community of editors hadn't embarked on a new process. As I said above, trying to shoehorn the guidelines so as to return the title to "British Isles" would not be supported by any interpretation of the guidelines, and in any case, goes against the spirit of the guidelines which is to "set the playing field back to even". The only reasonable way to set the playing field back to even is to return the title back to the last time the title was discussed and a consensus appeared to exist - which was to "Britain". --HighKing (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

HighKing, could you provide a link to the policy which you are referencing above? Neither Wikipedia:Moving_guidelines_for_administrators nor Help:Moving a page are policy, and as such are not exactly authoritative. Or maybe there is a confusion here over the definition of the term "policy"; I always use it to mean only pages which are marked with the {{policy}} tag, maybe you are using it in a more general sense?--Aervanath (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've included links for the quotes, and I misused the word "policy" several times. Search and replace with "guidelines". --HighKing (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Analysis

HighKing, I think our disagreement turns on our interpretation of the word "recent". When I am talking about the recent bold move, I am talking about the most recent one, to British Islands. You are talking about the one before that, the one to British Isles, which, being 9 months old, I don't view as recent. Lets take this to a more abstract level, so we can take the immediacy out of this, and evaluate policy independent of this situation. Here's my and Parsecboy's interpretation of the guideline, for a hypothetical article X:
Situation 1:

1. Article X was created at title "A", or has been there for a substantial length of time
2. Article X is then boldly moved to title "B"
3. A short amount of time passes
4. Another editor protests this move, but doesn't or can't revert the move before filing the move request.
5. The move request reaches no consensus, so the closing admin/editor should probably move the article back to title "A".

Situation 2:

1. Article X was created at title "A", or has been there for a substantial length of time
2. Article X is then boldly moved to title "B"
3. A substantial amount of time passes
4. An editor decides that they prefer the previous title, "A", but doesn't or can't revert the move before filing the move request.
5. The move request reaches no consensus, so the closing admin/editor should leave the article at title "B".

You will see that the key difference between the two situations is the amount of time that passes before the move request. You may also note that I have not included the term "controversial" anywhere in my analysis, as the controversiality of any move is subjective. So, to clarify our assumptions before we proceed, I have some questions for you that I'd appreciate your answers to, so we can establish common ground to continue this:

Question one: Do you agree that the "British Islands" title was moved to without consensus, and therefore should be reverted? From our conversation, you seem to have implied that you do, and that we're just discussing where it should be reverted to, but I'd like to confirm that explicitly.

Question two: Do you disagree with my abstract analysis of the guideline above? If so, could you give a similarly itemized breakdown of what you think the various situations are, and how you think they should be treated?

Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 04:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thank you again for taking the time with this. I agree that the "British Islands" title should be reverted. While the strict meaning of the term is probably correct for the content of the article, it doesn't fit with WP:COMMONNAME. So yes, we are discussing what name it should be reverted to.

As to my abstract analysis of the guidelines - I agree with both Situation 1 and 2 above. My point is that the guidelines only refer to filed moved requests. Therefore:

Situation 3 (from Situation 2)

1. Article X was created at title "A", or has been there for a substantial length of time
2. Article X is then boldly moved to title "B"
3. A substantial amount of time passes
4. An editor decides that they prefer the previous title, "A", but doesn't or can't revert the move before filing the move request.
5. Article X boldly moved to title "C"
6. Move request fails to achieve consensus and simultaneously...
7. Community kicks off an AfD
8. The AfD fails (probably). Article stuck at title "C"

Observation 1. No move request was filed for title "C", therefore the guidelines can only refer to the move request after title "B". Since the guidelines refer to resetting the title to what it was 2 titles before the move request, this is title "A".

Observation 2. If a move request had been filed for title "C" and no consensus reached, then the guidelines could be applied using admin discretion.

Question 1. What should an administrator do in this case? Observation 1 would mean that the title can't simply be moved back to title "B". But they would support moving the title back to title "A".

Question 2. Would the community accept either title "A", "B", or title "C" in any case? Is there a likelihood that the article title will stabilize on any title? What is the closest to a consensus that exists now?

Question 3. Are there any other guidelines? (Hint: The community started WP:BISLES a while back, but suspended it until WT:IECOLL was finished first, as both issues appear intertwined. ArbCom are actively involved).

Once again, thank you for your calm and reasoned approach, and especially your patience. --HighKing (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I see the point in the analysis where our disagreement lies: I believe that the second sentence of your Observation 1 is incorrect. The guidelines do not refer to setting the title to what it was 2 titles before the move request, they refer to setting it back to the title as it was when the move request was initiated. (This is applicable in Situations 2 and 3, but not 1.) I think that everyone involved in this case will agree, as you and I have, that title "C" was arrived at inappropriately. If the Afd fails, then an administrator should reset the article to title B, back at the point where it was when the move request was first opened. At this point, another move discussion is started, with the title exactly as it was when the first one was originally filed. Hopefully, the second time around, consensus will be achieved and the involved editors will be able to agree on the proper title, whether it is A, B, C, or some new title. If there are any other naming guidelines that apply to the case, that would certainly help the situation considerably. The only naming convention I found that might be applicable would be Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics), but it doesn't really help much in this situation, I think. I was going to advise you to solicit opinions at WT:MILHIST, but then I went there and saw that you already did, with a seemingly (I only skimmed the discussion) equal lack of consensus as on the talk page of the article. So, basically, once the article is back at title B, it is up to the involved editors to figure out a compromise title that would better it. I must confess I don't really want to get involved in the larger disputes about the British Isles; I'm coming at this purely from a process-wonky point of view. :) Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Aervanath. And yes, you most definitely don't want to get involved - for the most part, it's a horrible emotive-led irrational nationalistic stupid debate involving disruptive editors and entrenched positions. All future UN negotiators should cut their teeth on some of these topics first. As to the guidelines, at least we've now identified where we're disagreeing over the guidelines. I've reread what I wrote, and I've reread the guidelines, and I don't think I'm making a mistake about this. The guidelines observe the following chronology of events:

1. Article X at title "A"
2. Bold Move - Article X at title "B"
3. Requested move filed to revert to title "A"
4. Consensus fails. Article still at title "B"
5. Admin discretion - reverts title to "A"

So I'm correct in that the guidelines reset the title back to what it was 2 titles before the move request - which is title "A". Again, I reiterate, there was no move request filed for title "C" in Situation 3 above. Now maybe the title can be moved to "B" using a different guideline - just not the one you've pointed out to me.

My own opinion would be that since it appears that nobody likes the current title, editors from "both sides" are more likely to reach a consensus on a new title. The danger of reverting to "B" is that it won't have a consensus either to keep or to change, but you will have inadvertantly created a "victor" and lost the opportunity to "force" both sides to compromise, negotiate, discuss, and reach agreement. It might even lay the ground for other article edit-wars also being resolved. Take a look at WT:IECOLL for a peek into how difficult the process is.

Thank you again. Peace. --HighKing (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems as though we're not making progress here. There is clearly no consensus to delete the article, so I would like to request it be renamed to title 'B', as per the rationale described above, and take it from there. I favour an eventual name of Miltiary History of the British Isles, but that can be decided once the debate detailed on this page has been concluded. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) HighKing, in your last post, you don't make a distinction between the different situations that I outlined above: the length of time between the bold move and request to reverse it. If there had only been a week or so between Setanta747's move and your request, then I probably would reset it to the title as it was before he moved it. However, since it was there for 9 months, that's too long a period for me to ignore it as the most recent stable name.--Aervanath (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Aervanath, I think there's a danger of muddying all the various things that were said together, and losing the clarity that we gained from going one step at a time. I have not distinguished between Situation 1 or Situation 2 above, because the admin guidelines would apply to both those cases - I categorically agree with your interpretation here. But you have not replied to Situation 3 above, nor responded to the point that the guidelines *cannot* apply to a situation like this because of the reasons outlined. --HighKing (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Situation 3, to me, has exactly the same outcome as Situation 2; the article stays at the title "B", which is the title that was extant after step 3: "a substantial amount of time passes". So I don't really see a As for the other reasons you cited, having to do with WT:IECOLL, I understand the frustrating process that this has been for everyone involved, although my participation in this is purely incidental. I would still like to assume good faith that the editors of the page in question can come to a compromise on a suitable title. If you like, I will refrain from moving the page back to the "British Isles" title until another discussion has taken place, as I suppose there is no rush.--Aervanath (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

We're currently polling the editors for their preferred title on the Article Talk page.

Perhaps you are purposefully being oblique in your response, but you have not "walked through" the policy in relation to Situation 3 (as I have above). If you do as well, you should reach the same conclusion, and you'll see that a move back to title "B" is simple not supported by application of the admin guidelines. TBH, I hope we'll end up with a resolution on the Article Talk page though. --HighKing (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that opinion is very divided on what to rename the article. The ongoing poll shows two main options which both have a large number of supporters but also large opposition too. There has been talk of the vote being open another week, but even once the vote is decided there are weeks of the dispute ahead before any consensus is going to be found.

One important thing to note is that none of the options (even further suggestions made after the 5 options were listed) have included keeping the article where it is now. The article in question has been evolving over years, starting out as about the UK then just being about Britain but as pointed out in the edit summary many months ago it included information about Ireland so it was changed to "British Isles". That change 7+ months ago was not undone once until 2 weeks ago when this all started. Unlike what happened when it was renamed British Islands (undone several times and resulted in it being put up for deletion).

The article really needs to be moved from its current title. We have already seen attempts by some editors to remove content so that it fits the current title which nobody wants. Please could you take a look at this situation. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Generally, I try to leave polls like this open for a full seven days before closing them. It'll hit that limit at 17:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC), which is in another day and a half. That's a Sunday, though, so I'll probably go back and evaluate the discussion on Monday. That'll let more weekend editors take part, if they care.--Aervanath (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

• License update: Licensing vote results announced, resolution passed
• News and notes: New board member, flagged revisions, Eurovision interviews
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia: threat or menace?
• WikiProject report: WikiProject LGBT studies
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

File:ImmolaterStillfromFalseFire.jpg

Can I ask why this image was kept? The issue of many of the image's elements being completely replaceable was not at all addressed. J Milburn (talk) 10:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

From what I could see, there wasn't a consensus on that. You asserted that they were replaceable, another editor asserted that they weren't, but nobody actually went farther and provided any more direct reasoning beyond bare assertions on the matter. So I think it was a clear "no consensus" close. Given the lack of consensus, you can feel free to re-nominate it for deletion at any time.--Aervanath (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A lack of consensus on the use of a non-free image is clearly a delete. See bullet 3.1 of enforcement section of the non-free content criteria- "Note that it is for users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale, not for those seeking to remove or delete it to show that one cannot be created. See burden of proof." If no one could demonstrate why the image is irreplaceable (it clearly is- we have non-free images of people showing a specific pose- why couldn't we have a picture by a Wikipedian showing that?) it should be deleted. J Milburn (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Milburn, the image is for the purpose of supporting commentary from the False Fire documentary - to help the reader understand a central piece of information the documentary conveys. Two of the images are of a historic incident - one that took place in 2001 and clearly not reproducible. Note image D is not something we could reproduce. The rest are low-resolution captures from the same 45 minute documentary ( which has already been broadcast multiple times to the public, and is also available for free download on many websites ) - and is clearly fair-use. We have to draw those from the documentary because we are presenting there, the perspective of the documentary ( not our personal perspective). If we create our own set of images - how could it possibly capture what the documentary states? Wouldn't it be a mere OR composition? To make my point clearer, - could we present snapshots wikipedia users have taken for the purpose of discussing the perspective of a BBC documentary? That would amount to just OR. Further, this is a completely non-commercial work, broadcast multiple times to the public on NTDTV, from which we are taking just 6 low resolution frames.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to point out that I have added the below to the image description to clarify why it is fair use.:

According to US law Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107, there are 4 factors:

• 1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (This image is not for commercial use)
• 2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (The source is from a docmentary, which has already been broadcasted to the public multiple times on NTDTV, and is made available for free download on several websites.)
• 3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; (These are just 6 snapshots from the original approx 45 min video. If we use the whole video or a substantial portion of it, then it may not constitute fair use.)
• 4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. (Considering 2, and 3 above, there's not much effect upon the market value of original work since the original work is not for commercial purpose.)

Kindly refer to http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-c.html ..

"Non-replaceable. Composite Image used to present the perspective of the False Fire documentary . Images and commentary have to be drawn from the same to ensure fidelity to source."

Dilip rajeev (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I admit that image C and image D are irreplaceable, but I fail to see why any others are- A, B and F would be very easily replaceable. And no, a compilation of images to demonstrate the points made by the documentary would not amount to original research. Say, hypothetically, a documentary stated "John sat on a chair, as shown by this image, not on a stool, which would look like this" we could easily show a free image of someone sitting on a stool alongside the original image of John, rather than the documentary's image of some nobody on a stool. How the documentary displays the alternatives is not important- they are there to show what such a thing would look like, not what a specific incident did look like. As such, portions of this image should be replaced with a free alternative, or, if none are currently available, deleted. (On another note, I don't care what some law from a country I haven't visited, passed before I was born says. I work with Wikipedia policies; if the Foundation wants to lay down the law, so be it, but, until then, I don't care. On another note, non-free material is non-free material. It can be non-commercial, given to us, shown on every website of the 'net or whatever- if the copyright holder hasn't released it, it's non-free.) J Milburn (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

C,D&E are irreplaceable. As for A,B and F - theoretically we could create photos that look similar - but how could we be the authority to say, "this is the posture"? We could strive to imitate what the pictures from the documentary show - but then to go ahead and claim, "this is the right posture ( and I am accurately imitating what I saw in the doc)" would be just plain original research - irrespective of whether you have managed to imitate them accurately or not. How could any wikipedia user be an authority on the issue? Who is gonna certify the posture was imitated accurately enough? It is just about fair-use and ensuring fidelity to the source. To be noted that the composite adds a lot in terms of info to the article. Dilip rajeev (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Using that logic, pretty much any self-taken image on Wikipedia could be deleted. Who's to say that that was said celebrity? Who's to say that it is this flower? We already use free images of people in the lotus position. On another note, how on Earth is E irreplaceable? Last time I checked, the Chinese military still existed, and was still somewhat high profile. J Milburn (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing the relevant policy, I have concluded that J Milburn is, in fact, correct. A sufficient case was not made during the FFD discussion for why this image is irreplaceable. Nor has it been sufficiently proven in the current discussion, so I will go back and alter the outcome of the FFD discussion.--Aervanath (talk) 11:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's great. J Milburn (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Template

Hi, thanks for closing this debate. The template has already been subst'ed and is no longer in use on articles. I probably could delete it myself but, considering that debate there, that might not be the smartest move. :)Garion96 (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done--Aervanath (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your significant effort in reducing the backlog at WP:RM!

—harej (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Just doing what I enjoy. :) --Aervanath (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello

First of all, thank you for responding to the comment I left at User talk:Dekimasu. I particularly appreciate your interjection since he did not reply to me himself, unless he assumed your message was sufficient.

I also am contacting you, as an administrator, re: a bizarre situation I have encountered. Since July 2007, User:Giraffedata has been removing the phrase "comprised of" from what appears to be hundreds of articles. He explains his justification for doing so at great length at User:Giraffedata/comprised of. I briefly glanced at his talk page, and it appears that although there has been objection to his doing so, he continues with his campaign. As someone who as worked as a professional writer, proofreader, and editor over the years, I disagree with his belief the phrase is gramatically incorrect. Does one simply ignore such an individual? Or does this require an adminstrator's intervention? Thank you for your feedback. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 12:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

We were taught at school that 'comprised of' is wrong (UK, 1960s). I would probably change it if I saw it in a Brit-Eng doc. Occuli (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Here in the States it is considered acceptable [2] [3]. According to [4], "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation." Therefore, would you agree if the phrase is used in an article about an American subject, it should remain as is? Thanks! LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 15:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't personally change the English in any US or non-UK page unless there is a completely obvious error. I have had a look at Giraffedata's edits and must confess that looking at 100s of changes of 'comprised of' to quite a variety of alternatives leaves one's senses reeling. 'The band's members were X, Y and Z' seems a better way of putting quite a number of instances ('the band comprised of X, Y and Z'). Giraffedata seems to have met the fiercest resistance with NZ-English. (I found 5000+ instances of 'comprised of' in article space so there is much to do ...) Occuli (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I am amazed that anyone would devote so much time and energy to what clearly is an obsession, especially when so many articles are in need of improvement in so many other ways. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 19:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It takes all kinds. :) I'll look into the matter and get back to you on this.--Aervanath (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, what he's doing isn't really outright disruptive. He's not actually changing to anything that's incorrect. I personally disagree with his position, but if that's how he wants to spend his time, and he's not actually damaging anything, then I don't see the point in making a big deal out of it.--Aervanath (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

• From the editor: Browsing the archives
• Book review: Review of The Future of the Internet
• Scientology: End of Scientology arbitration brings blocks, media coverage
• News and notes: Picture of the Year, Wikipedia's first logo, Board elections, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Tamil Wikipedia, Internet Watch Foundation, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Advice needed

You have seen part of the discussion / conflict about renaming Wikipedia maintenance categories. You may have noticed that the fiercest resistance came from William Allen Simpson. Later I have taken him to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts and he received a warning. He has also tried to repay me in style, so far without success.

I have received the advice to "Dare I suggest that the two of you take a break, from each other and from pages where you have bumped heads." The first part, about taking a break from William Allen Simpson, I didn't need, because he doesn't personally interest me. The latter I have found hard, since his main activity is on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion where I have reason to be as well.

Because of a certain discussion there, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_1#Category:African_American_rock_groups I decided to see if perhaps William Allen Simpson had anything to do with this (which he didn't, at first glance), and bumped into a few edits of his that seem really "wrong" to me. Note: I know that the word "wrong" is not very professional, but I hope you understand what I mean. The edits are [5], [6], [7] and [8].

Now I don't know what to do. If I open a discussion about these edits he will surely say (as he has done before, incorrectly), that I stalk him and open another wp:ani or wp:wqa discussion, as is his way. Not that I would find it hard to defend myself, but it is such a sad thing really. Even after all is said and done, and notice that I have been ruled right or at least not-wrong more than once already, I still feel myself like I bathed in mud (or the other substance). Do you have an advice for me, that would one the one hand avoid another confrontation, but on the other put a stop to William Allen Simpson making his point and disrupting Wikipedia in the process? Debresser (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless he's actually depopulating categories as an end-run around CFD, I don't see that he's actually doing anything wrong with the edits you reference above. One of the categories he removed is quite large, and the others have either been deleted at CFD or are up at CFD now. So unless there's something more specifically wrong about those edits, I would advise you to just drop the matter, and let your Wikistress level drop. :) --Aervanath (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

He does depopulate categories as an end-run round cfd (although I expect he will say he is removing incorrectly categorised articles). He has very high standards for inclusion, eg Roni Tran Binh Trong was firstly removed from Category:Finnish people of Vietnamese descent (which is under cfd) on the grounds that Vietnamese was not established, and then on the grounds that we cannot be sure he is Finnish. There have several other examples: George Alagiah is another (British of Tamil descent, his parents being Tamil). (He is by no means the only person who does this during cfds.) Occuli (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Perhaps we should strengthen the guidelines at CFD. The header currently reads:

Unless the change is non-controversial (such as vandalism or a duplicate), please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision.

Maybe something stronger, such as

Do NOT remove the category from any pages until the community has made a decision, except for cases of obvious vandalism or duplication.

Thoughts?--Aervanath (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I would support that. WAS also has devised {{People_by_ethnicity}} which he is adding to categories; he is effectively able to remove anyone from a heritage category using one strand or other (unless they are really well documented such as Obama and indeed George Alagiah). He also quotes guidelines which he has himself written. He doesn't ask for sources, he just removes the category. Here is another WAS edit which emptied a category under cfd (and which makes a difference to 'upmerge'). Occuli (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone told him that this is isn't acceptable?--Aervanath (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Promise

See here the evidence that I am keeping my promise to not make any more changes to categories without discussion. I admit being a little impatient, waiting for the outcome of what I see as obvious improvements. But that is life. Debresser (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. However, what some people see as obvious improvements, others see as radical changes requiring discussion. If you want to see a worst-case scenario for what happens when people feel that they haven't been consulted on things which affect them, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride. So I'm glad you've put it open for discussion. It looks like no one has commented yet, which means it'll probably be approved. This may seem like jumping through bureaucratic hoops, but as a volunteer-driven organization, people need to feel like they had the opportunity to discuss things. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Up for discussion

First of all, thank you for your wise words. Furthermore, since you have been involved in the previous discussion as an outside mediator, I'd appreciate it if you could keep an eye on my nominations in this specific sphere of maintenance categories. You've already noticed this one, and then there is this one where I have again received an unpleasant remark and misleading sneers from William Allen Simpson. Finally I have nominated the category from which all the trouble started for rename here. Debresser (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I shall keep on eye on them. Thanks. :) --Aervanath (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

See there that William Allen Simpson continues with making derogatory and insulting remarks. Nothing spectacular, but unpleasant. I'll keep my quit, but if this continues, I'd like to know what the correct follow-up is. Debresser (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Debresser, I can see that he's on the edge of incivility, but I have to be honest, comments like "Will you please stop speaking nonsense" aren't going to help. My advice here is to ignore his incivility and direct your comments only at his arguments. "Kill 'em with kindness", as they say. Only respond to the arguments he raises that are directly relevant to the discussion. Don't bother to comment about the tone of his remarks, or waste your time on telling him your opinion of him. He certainly already knows. :) If you find yourself being provoked, leave your computer for a while and cool down. Then, when you're cool, go back and write a response. Make it as complimentary as you can. See Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy for something related. But basically, don't let yourself get angry. I rarely get into disputes like this, for the simple reason that when I'm pissed off I log off and take a Wikibreak. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I'll do just that. 90% of my reply to his arguments in my third nomination was strictly to the point. I considered some time, whether or not to add the last point. In the end I decided that in order to avoid making the impression that his personal comment might in some way be considered an argument, I should reply to it also. Which I think I managed to do in a detached way. Thanks for keeping an eye on things and helping me keep the discussion cool. Debresser (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

British Isles Issues

Hi Aervanath. I notice you have been looking at the recent article renaming at Military history of the peoples of the British Islands. You say that you'll give time for the most recent vote to reach a consensus before deciding if a page move revert is necessary. I would just like to advise you that there has, today, been a case of external canvassing on an Irish discussion board concerning this matter. There is a link to the external discussion at the article talk page. It is clear from the contributions so far that consensus is very unlikely to be reached, with or without the external canvassing. I would therefore ask you to consider renaming this page to the title that you descibe as 'B' in the discussion on your Talk page. LevenBoy (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

As I just posted above, I'll let the discussion stay open a little longer, then go back and evaluate it, including the allegations of canvassing, and try to parse out what, if any, consensus exists.--Aervanath (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Emma white20/Sydney Rae White

Following a DRV, you rightly put this into a user space for updates that were promised. A month has passed with no work on the article, and I'm concerned, because we have a BLP deemed NN at AfD languishing, and it is visible in Google, appearing in the first page of results for this individual's name. I wondered if you had any thoughts on how to proceed? Fritzpoll (talk) 09:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added a {{noindex}} tag to it, so it should stop appearing in Google's results soon. If you feel it's still inappropriate, you can nominate it for WP:MFD, but usually consensus there tends to give a lot of leeway (at least ~6 months) for articles to be kept in userspace for improvement, with the justification that WP:Notability doesn't apply outside of mainspace.--Aervanath (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Happy for it to be there - just feel too involved to neutrally touch the article, and want it out of Google. Cheers Fritzpoll (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help. :)--Aervanath (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Userfy

Could you restore the data on my deleted User Page so that I can grab the source? I thought I was writing in a sandbox (misinterpreted the Wiki sandbox link) and was trying to convert and play with one of my guides. I'll remove it as soon as I grab the source. Danr14 (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The material has been restored to User:Danr14/Sandbox for your retrieval. It will be deleted again after 48 hours. Please try to keep your activities on Wikipedia centered around improving Wikipedia. Your input on actual articles would be appreciated. Non-encyclopedic stuff will be deleted. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Reason for your closing of Lnlwedding.jpg as endorsed

Hello, Aervanath. Will you explain why you closed this review as endorsed? Is it because you feel that consensus was to delete? If so, I state that despite four people being for endorse, three people were for overturn and I do not see how that is much consensus (unless you added in that copy-and-paste delete vote from the original deletion debate of this image, which still would not be much). Also, what about the arguments? I am simply not seeing how the votes for delete or endorse in either of the discussions are more valid than my arguments for keep and overturn. The Supercouple article right now simply does not convey the right essence any longer without an image of the supercouple who started the term (particularly of the point which the term was started, their groundbreaking wedding). I am not seeing why this image had to be deleted, while less important images within the article get to remain. In addition, there is the fact that the main reason this image was nominated for deletion was not even about its use in the Supercouple article (something I addressed and took care of).

If I want to upload this image again at a later date due to feeling that it is even more valid within whichever article I put it in, which may include the Supercouple article, will I be allowed to do that without getting into Wikipedia trouble? Or should I list this image at deletion review again at that later time? Flyer22 (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Just coming back to say that S Marshall pretty much explained about all this. Flyer22 (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at S Marshall's talk page and seen your conversation with him, and he seems to have explained it quite well. If you do have further questions for me, feel free to ask.--Aervanath (talk) 05:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Signatures

Thanks for the suggestion, but my reason is that I don't want the old account name appearing on google searches, or being associated with my new account name. Therefore, I don't want the old name to redirect to this one. ⟳ausa کui ^× 00:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I can understand that. Are you going to go for every single one of your past signatures? That's going to take a heck of a long time!--Aervanath (talk) 04:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Afd of the Money Masters

I think the issue is misunderstood on the deleting the article "the Money Masters (film)". I did not argue that the article in it's previous form should be undeleted. I argued that there should be a new article reference to it in wikipedia based on its notoriety/notability. The participants in the discussions argued solely on errouneous issues such as the films content, which I belie is not how one verifies a film's notability on wikipedia. The next arguments were that there were no references to it online and that all such were selling it. This is also a errouneous claim, if one browses past the first two pages of google hits as with any commercial product or product for sale one gets to the actual references. The film is verifiably been commented upon by several economists and it currently has over a hundred thousand views if not more on sites such as google video and youtube. These are factual claims that can be verified by anyone. I have not been able to make any of the opponents state what evidence reference is needed to make the article acceptable and they have avoided all my points as if they did not exist and their responses have been derogatory towards me and so shallow and superficial so as to not make it possible to find out what they wanted that would make the article comply to their professed standards. I still am at a loss which arguments you and the rest have weighed in and I am really wondering who I or anyone else is to prsent a new improved version to. For the perhaps thousands people who turn to wikipedia after having seen the film for information on where and when this film appeared and any other facts, I can only conclude that you have made this as difficult to find out as possible. I find it disturbing to say the least when video games get more space on wikipedia than serious economists and films devulging historic facts no matter how much we disagree with the content. The content is not the issue. There are articles on wikipedia about Leni Riefenstahl and her films on wikipedia. The film is praised by Nobel Price Winner in the field of economics Milton Friedman, it does nothing but cite documented historic quotes and events. I do not believe that you will get others to change their minds or enter into a rational civil discussion on this, I just want to make a record of what you have committed here for posterity. I find it pretty revolting that reason and proper arguments do not have any impact on enough mature adults here anymore. Sincerely~. Nunamiut (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, we must have been reading different discussions. In the deletion review, the prevalent concerns were not about the film's content, but were that not enough third-party, neutral, reliable sources had been provided to show the film's notability. If you could provide direct links to those sources, as opposed to just saying that they exist, that would go a long way towards convincing other Wikipedia editors that the film meets our criteria for inclusion. For comparison, see Loose Change (film)#References, which includes large amounts of links to independent coverage of that film. Even one or two links such as those would be sufficient to justify having an article on The Money Masters. Once you've identified those sources, I will be happy to help you move the article to its appropriate location. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Image deleted after you closed the DrV endorsing its keep

[9]. Not sure if this goes to DrV again (new reason for speedy) ANI, or what. The deleting admin is disinclined to restore. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm reDRVing it. Stifle (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I've commented at the DRV.--Aervanath (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sofia Rotaru

I am afraid you have committed a mistake. The files were rather to be kept as they are, or shortened at worst, but nobody voted for their deletion, except the nominator. I doubt this is in accordance with Wikipedia rules...* The desire of Jaan Pärn to delete the contents and then the article Sofia Rotaru alltogether goes a little too far, even when users vote for keeping files. Do you think this deletion was done in accordance with the Wikipedia rules?--Rubikonchik (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC) --Rubikonchik (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do. The key criterion here is WP:NFCC#3a: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." As the editor who !voted "Keep...sort of" noted, there are many clips in the article, and no especial need for the deleted clips was shown over other clips in the article. No argument was made in the FFD that overcame that.--Aervanath (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, first of all there were two or three "keeps" (week or strong) and one "delete". For me, not a rocket scientist, the consensus is clearly to keep. Second, the whole paragraph deals (or used to deal, since I cannot even follow anymore all of the deltions of Jaan Pärn on the article Sofia Rotaru about these songs where. It is for the intention to release an album with these songs with Sony BMG Music Entertainment, that Sofia Rotaru was forbidden to leave the USSR for 7 years. At the same time, Soviet power allowed her to sing the Circus song representing Soviet Union in India on Universal Youth Games. Circus was the major success of the Soviet delegation. Just listen to the observations of commentators on youtube (radio live recording). That's the whole controversy about certain and namely these songs in foreign languages of Sofia Rotaru, which changed her life, caused anger and satisfaction of the Soviet authorities at the same time. This was told in the article, but I guess later deleted by Jaan Pärn. --Rubikonchik (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate your argument, but please read all WP:NOTAVOTE; discussions are based on the strength of the arguments, not the number of votes. Also, please read all of WP:NFCC. Near the bottom, it notes that "it is for users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale, not for those seeking to remove or delete it to show that one cannot be created". Even with these three deletions, there are still many sound clips on the article, and there was no "valid rationale" in the FFD to show why ALL of them were necessary. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Your first argument should be dismissed, as if we are following the WP:NOTAVOTE, you should have noted that not only Jaan Pärn basically lied in his arguments, but also other users have counterargumented him. Your second argument should be dismissed as well, as these were unique recordings for a Western recording company, in foreign, back then (in the late 70's!!!! - it's not that far from the hottest point of the Cold War) of the leading Soviet singer... I think all of them are complied with. Which one is missing?--Rubikonchik (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What is missing is an explanation why it is necessary that there be more than one sound clip in the article. According to WP:NFCC#3a (which I have already cited above), Wikipedia requires "minimal usage" of non-free media. Without a sufficient argument to show why multiple non-free sound clips are required to demonstrate the style of her music, there could have been no other outcome. So far, I have seen nothing to convince me of this necessity. For each file, it is necessary to show why that particular clip, and ONLY that particular clip, could add to the reader's understanding of a key fact in the article. I have seen nothing sufficiently specifically-worded in any of the discussions, including this one. If you can give me an individual explanation why each one is critical to reader understanding, then of course I will undelete the ones which are critical.--Aervanath (talk) 06:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a familiar reasonuing: "first I decide to delete, just because, then I try to find a reason why exactly did I delete. And if the reason does not work, I'll always invent another one." I have provided already a detailed explanation why these audio files were important and unique. You haven't addressed any of my concernes regarding the Wikipedia rules as far as the voting and number of "keep"s and "delete"s is concerned. I could revert to you with necessary links, proper wording etc., if that's what's missing... But you will probably find another reason... Therefore, please kindly indicate me where can we discuss this with a third party input? Thank you.--Rubikonchik (talk) 10:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You should go to WP:Deletion review and follow the instructions there, so that other users can review my reasoning.--Aervanath (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Australian charts are listified

Just an FYI: the number-one singles in Australia are listified by year in the lists in Category:Lists of number-one songs in Australia. Thanks. --Wolfer68 (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Was that mentioned at the CFD? If it wasn't you should make certain to mention it the next time you put it up for deletion.--Aervanath (talk) 06:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it wasn't overt enough. I did say "Lists for most of these already exist and in many in excellent detail", but I didn't provide any links to the existing lists.--Wolfer68 (talk) 10:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Well, that's a point in your favor, but that doesn't really change the fact that the discussion reached no consensus, unfortunately. That doesn't prevent it from being re-nominated, though. You may want to start a discussion on the talk pages of WP:WikiProject Music and WP:WikiProject Songs, and try to come to a consensus with the members of those wikiprojects on whether these categories are really appropriate or not. If you can come to a consensus there, that'll be something you can point to in a later CFD.--Aervanath (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Vote rigging at Military History of British Islands

I am truly amazed at your page move of Military History of the peoples of the British Islands. You have paid absolutely no attention to the external canvassing on an Irish (potentially anti-British) discussion board which drew numerous new editors to the vote and which bolstered the option you say has won. This canvassing was pointed out to you. It flies in the face of Wikipedia principles and you appear to have condoned it. What is your explanation for this seemingly misguided decision? LevenBoy (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, the canvassing was clearly pointed out in the discussion. And I have not "condoned" it. Looking at the discussion, it is quite clear which !votes are from "canvassed" editors, and I ignored those, along with any !votes who didn't actually participate in the discussion or offer a rationale. My decision was based on the content and tone of the discussion, and I stand by it.--Aervanath (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In that case you have possibly miscounted. The majority view, up to the time of the canvassing, was for option 1. Please see the analysis by User:Bastun within the discussion. Votes after the canvassing cannot, in all fairness, be counted. Also, if you excluded votes that didn't offer a "rationale" then some subjectivity must have crept into your analysis. LevenBoy (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Having quickly looked at the voting it is clear that a small number of users merely stated "Support" or "Oppose". To enable me to assess the fairness of the process please let me know precisely which votes you included and which you excluded (I acknowledge that voting is indicative only and not binding). Thanks. LevenBoy (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the !votes which I explicitly ignored were:

Option 1:

1. User:Iwasfrozen (oppose, this was only edit)
2. User:MidnightBlueMan (support, no rationale)
3. User:Rockybiggs (support, no rationale)
4. User:Footyfanatic3000 (oppose, purely nationalistic rationale)
5. User:ColmDawson (oppose, no rationale, only 33 edits)
6. User:Jonsnow27 (oppose, purely nationalistic rationale, only 6 edits)
7. User:Þjóðólfr (oppose, rationale unclear)

That left the !vote count at 8-7 in support, a bare majority.

Option 4:

1. User:Deedsie (support, purely nationalistic rationale, only 11 edits)
2. User:MidnightBlueMan (oppose, no rationale)
3. User:Rockybiggs (oppose, no rationale)
4. User:Footyfanatic3000 (support, no real rationale)
5. User:Navnite (support, no actual rationale, only 12 edits)
6. User:ColmDawson (support, no rationale)
7. User:Jonsnow27 (support, nationalistic rationale, only 6 edits)

This left the !vote count at 8-4 in support, a much more substantial majority. However, much more important than the vote count for me was the tone of the discussion in the two sections. The feeling I got from reading the two sections was quite different. While there is obvious disagreement present in both subsections, the discussion under Option 1 got quite unfriendly, I felt, whereas the the comments under Option 4 were far more civil, leading me to believe that this would be less controversial choice. I felt that this, more than the numbers, pushed me towards Option 4. If you are still concerned about the canvassing, I would ask you to note that most of the !votes I ignored were from the Irish side. I hope that this assuages your concerns somewhat. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The debate under option one got unfriendly because certain editors raise hell about the term they dismiss, as often happens it seems their crying has paid off. Look at British Isles itself, you will see countless attempts by editors there to try and rename the article totally lying about issues just because they have a clear agenda.

The fact they were prepared to canvass is a concern but even if we forget that happened the votes were far too close for consenus to be reached. I didnt strongly oppose the idea of splitting the articles, but the reason i did now has to be addressed. What exactly is this article meant to be about. Just what happened in Britain or everything everypart has done in the world throughout history? For example, after you changed the name i removed the wikiproject tag for Ireland from the talk page and removed any mention of Ireland in the intro. Was that a correct move for what the article is now meant to reflect? BritishWatcher (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think so. Those tags would then be applied to the new Military history of Ireland page. I note that the page has now been turned into a disambiguation page, which seems to render the whole previous drama and move discussion completely moot.--Aervanath (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

sorry hadnt seen that the article had been changed that does resolve this problem, although a look at the introduction of the Military history of Ireland shows another conflict is obviously going to start right away.

"The military history of Ireland for centuries has been dominated by the role played by England and the United Kingdom, with a struggle from independence from England." Lmao, this article is going to be sooooo balanced im sure. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes. I hope that this is my last involvement with the whole mess. :)--Aervanath (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont blame you for not wanting to get involved again and i understand why you made the choice you did. The main thing is we no longer have the stupid article title of British islands, im far more happy with the current setup than how it was although just for the record, taking a look at the Ireland article so far, with the exception of the final paragraph, all others in the intro has some mention of Britain, the British or English which is why it kind of made sense to have one on our shared history. Anyway thanks for ur help in trying to resolve this =) BritishWatcher (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. I am sure that the article will become more balanced over time, though. It'll just take a few edit wars, multiple blocks, large amounts of incivility and an ARBCOM case, that's all. Nothing to it. :)--Aervanath (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

And just what gives you the right to ignore my vote on the matter! Please show me where it said that for a vote to count you had to explain yourself! I've never seen anything like it in my life! When I vote at the ballot box I don't have to say why I'm voting for a particular candidate. Okay, these votes are not true binding votes, but you have NO right to disenfranchise me just because I didn't explain why I supported one option and opposed another. If you care to look at the previous vote, just above the one you've involved yourself with, you'll see that I did offer my opinion. I considered that a repeat vote didn't really need further explanation of my view. This whole issue has been handled very badly. I suggest you move the article back (to ...British Islands), roll back recent edits and conduct a proper poll. Vote rigging? No doubt about it! MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTAVOTE. Just because it has a poll-like format does not mean that is a straight by-the-numbers vote. If you doubt me, ask other admins or experienced editors, and they'll tell you the same thing.--Aervanath (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I already read it. My comments stand. I regret to say it, and please don't take offence, but you've made a hash of this. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ohhh god no, please anything but moving it back to British Islands. Thats part of certain editors agendas too, they want to make out that British islands is a regularly used term to justify getting rid of the British isles article all together. I think we should try and see how the article at military history of Ireland works out, it might not be possible for it to remain there always looking at how the basic wording has been formed. The vast majority of content is just going to be about Britain or England anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've no desire whatsoever for British Islands, but the process that's been going on here is scandalous. I was suggesting that the move made by Aervanath had no consensus, so he should reverse it. Granted, it should really be moved back to the title before British Islands, but there's no chance of that. The vote(s) and subsequent moves are a complete travesty. I bet Aervanath wishes he never came across this article :) MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely right I wish I'd never gotten involved, but that's what happens when you respond to move requests; sometimes they're controversial. I continue to believe that I made the best decision possible under the circumstances. As for it being a "complete travesty", well, I think it was already a complete mess; I don't think I made it any worse. :) In the future, though, please add rationales to your votes, as they are much more likely to be considered that way. In fact, on Wikipedia, you'll find most people write "!vote", with an exclamation point. The "!" means "not". These are not true votes; they are discussions, with people adding a bold heading just to make their position clearer. In most discussions on Wikipedia, !votes with no rationale are routinely discounted. This applies at deletion discussions as well as move discussions. I'm sorry you feel slighted, but this is standard practice.--Aervanath (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well it just gets worse more the more I look at the !votes!. In option 1 you've counted the political rant from User:Dunlavin Green as an Oppose, and in option 4 you've counted User:MusicInTheHouse with his minimal "see previous comments" as a Support. I really do think you need to seriously look at this again. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The above list only includes the !votes that I explicitly discounted right off the bat because of obvious insufficiencies. Just because a !vote is absent from that list doesn't mean I necessarily agreed with its rationale. In the end, I evaluated the discussion not by counting vote-by-vote, but reading the entire discussion and evaluating it as a whole. See User:Aervanath/How to evaluate consensus for my standard process. You will note that the vote-counting only starts once I've read the entire discussion, and the votes are explicitly secondary to the arguments put forth.--Aervanath (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ohh ive just found out that the vote was rigged even more than i first thought. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Vote_on_renaming_article_to_include_"British_Isles". BritishWatcher (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Actually, that looks like a fairly normal notice to me. Per WP:CANVASS, neutrally worded notices to interested parties are allowed. You will note that nothing in the WikiProject post has anything like "Hey, come vote for option X!" I would have had no objection if the same notice had been posted to other relevant WikiProjects, such as WP:WikiProject Britain, as long as they were neutrally worded. I'm far more bothered by the off-wiki canvassing than by the on-wiki WikiProject notifications, for reasons of transparency. Most WikiProjects have standard notices for when an article under their purview is sent to AFD, so this is pretty similar.--Aervanath (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

But there was no mention at all of the article on military history of the British isles or islands on the Britain wikiproject, its very clear what the intentions of the IP was in that case making it sound like we were trying to have an article renamed when in fact we wanted it restored to its previous name. I agree the outside canvass was far worse, but its still probably what attracted one or two of the editors to that vote. Doesnt really matter anymore though as the change has happened, just thought id mention it as id just seen it when on that page. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that the notice should have been cross-posted to other WikiProjects for a less biased call for outside opinion. However, as you say, it's pretty much moot. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Time to move on, BritishWatcher. You'll get no change here. BTW, the canvassing IP was also a voter, and his vote was counted, unlike mine. I think he may have also been the external canvasser. Like I said earlier, this whole thing has been badly handled. This is not the end of it. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Relisting CFDs

Just a heads up, when you relist a CFD into the next month and you fix the link to the new discussion, don't forget to change the CFD month category [10]. Thanks, btw, for the help in closing! --Kbdank71 13:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, thanks for the heads-up on that! I wasn't even paying attention to that. I wish we had a script that would do that automatically. :) Thanks for the tip!--Aervanath (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sophia Rotaru

Greetings, fellow admin. At DRV, I said "I don't believe the closing admin interpreted consensus or policy correctly." Rereading that, I think I may have come across kinda harsh. I don't mean any slight against you, and I thank you for being willing to tackle backlogs and make difficult admin calls. We disagree in this case, but I certainly don't mean to question your work here. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 17:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, it didn't come across as harsh to me, it was just a disagreement with my decision, which is perfectly fine. I am quite aware that I am human, and there are some handicaps that come with the species. :) Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL ... great minds...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions&diff=295672101&oldid=295671673

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Born2cycle (talk • contribs)

Yup. :) --Aervanath (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)