User talk:Aervanath

Quemoy --> Kinmen

• You were the admin at Quemoy –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 08:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • That's true. What are you requesting? If it's my further involvement, I think I will leave it to the next admin.--Aervanath (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

does local consensus trump community consensus

I'm perplexed by your "no consensus" decision. Perhaps there was an oversight here? Can you please re-evaluate, or maybe get someone else to take a look? Or am I missing something?

Talk:Catholic_Memorial_School_(West_Roxbury,_Massachusetts)#Close_challenged

Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I have replied there.--Aervanath (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Based on the replies there, would you consider reversing your decision, explaining it better, or at least reverting it and letting someone else close it? Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Having read the three separate discussions started since then, I don't think reversing my decision or reverting it will change the outcome; I think other admins would also find no consensus. However, I will try to explain it in more detail on Talk:Catholic Memorial School (West Roxbury, Massachusetts). If you still disagree with my reasoning, try posting to WP:AN to get other admins to weigh in. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

In your addendum to your closing comments at Talk:Catholic Memorial School (West Roxbury, Massachusetts) you wrote: Others claim that there is ambiguity, since there are enough other schools with similar names that disambiguation is necessary. Simply saying "there are enough other schools with similar names that disambiguation is necessary" does not mean "there are enough other schools with similar names that disambiguation is necessary". It's not even an argument, unless those alleged names are produced and listed, preferably on a dab page.

Let me put it this way, if it were true that were other schools sufficiently notable to be in WP with similar enough names to make disambiguation necessary, I personally would create the dab page, and support the disambiguation of this title. There is no such dab page because there are no such schools. That's the point you keep missing! In fact, a good faith effort was recently made to create such a page[1], but was quickly reverted[2], for good reason.

You also say, "If there is an overriding Wikipedia policy which supports either side in unequivocal terms, I am not aware of it". Really? Perhaps you have not read the lead of WP:D, which states:

Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles.

Since the single term "Catholic Memorial School" refers to only one topic covered in WP articles (it has not been shown to refer to any other topics covered by WP articles), it is not ambiguous, by definition. Since it's not ambiguous, there is no conflict, much less one to be resolved by disambiguating this title. That is clear support for no need for disambiguation in unequivocal terms.

Saying that this term is ambiguous and requires disambiguation, in the face of no dab page and a long-standing redirect from this term to this article, makes no sense, as others have noted at Talk:Catholic Memorial School (West Roxbury, Massachusetts). Please address these serious fundamental problems with your explanation that multiple people have noted, or reverse the decision. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Several schools with names of varying similarity were mentioned in the discussion. I'm not going to list them here, because Noetica already did. I realize that you and other editors don't regard these as similar enough to create ambiguity, but other editors who participated in the discussion do. I personally have no opinion on how similar the names have to be to create ambiguity. This is what I don't think there is consensus on, at the moment. If I saw consensus that "Catholic Memorial School" couldn't refer to any of the schools listed, then I would have moved the page and closed the discussion accordingly. But I saw disagreement with that, and I don't think the disambiguation guideline can be read so clearly in this case as to override that disagreement. As you quoted above, ambiguous means "when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles". There is disagreement about whether the term in question is ambiguous under this definition. I do not see "clear support for no need for disambiguation". I do not see "clear support for" a need for disambiguation. Thus, I do not see consensus. Please note that I have not said, myself, that the term is ambiguous or unambiguous; I am merely taking the arguments I have found in the discussion. A finding of "no consensus" is not a finding for or against ambiguity here. Should a future consensus find that "Catholic Memorial School" unambiguously refers to this school, then it will be moved to that title. Should a future consensus find that "Catholic Memorial School" could refer to multiple articles in this encyclopedia, then that page should be a disambiguation page. Since there is no current consensus on this fact, the status quo ante remains: Catholic Memorial School redirects to Catholic Memorial School (West Roxbury, Massachusetts).

If you still find "serious fundamental problems" with my analysis of the discussion, this is your prerogative. I am certainly capable of making mistakes, but I don't see the problems with my analysis. If you were to invite wider review of my logic at WP:ANI, that would be fine.--Aervanath (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"I realize that you and other editors don't regard these as similar enough to create ambiguity, but other editors who participated in the discussion do." Unless you're relying on WP:IAR (if so, what would be the good reason to do that here?), this is not a matter for debate. WP:DPAGES spells out the criteria for what constitutes ambiguous names quite clearly, and none of those names that Noetica listed qualify. That's what is so frustrating about your decision. You give equal weight to a pure WP:JDLI argument based entirely on personal preference as you do to one solidly steeped in policy, guidelines and convention. I mean, this should have been 10:0 decision (based on strength of arguments), and you called it 5:5. It wouldn't matter that much, except for the bad precedent aspect, which I just explained in the discussion at the article talk page so I won't repeat here.

"But I saw disagreement with that, and I don't think the disambiguation guideline can be read so clearly in this case as to override that disagreement." Seeing disagreement in a discussion like that is, at best, lack of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Clearly there was a lack of local consensus on this, but "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.". So, as a closer, you have to give more weight to consensus of the community, as expressed in guidelines like WP:D, and, in particular for this case, in the WP:DPAGES section, which I suggest you review. If you can find a way to justify any of the names on Noetica's list (only those that are actually articles, of course) as being ambiguous with Catholic Memorial School, please let me know.

By the way, if you're making your decisions solely on LOCALCONSENSUS interpretations of policy and guidelines, that explains much. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

A WP:AN mention

You were mentioned in a discussion at WP:AN; Wikipedia:AN#Should_editors_be_discouraged_from_asking_admins_to_justify_their_actions.3F --Born2cycle (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Protected status

Aervanath, at this Editrequest, I forgot to include the protected status of this redirect. It can be added easily by piping it to the end of the others, like this:

#REDIRECT [[London#Climate]]
(PLEASE LEAVE THIS LINE BLANK)
{{This is a redirect|to section|unprintworthy|protected}}

I realize you're not very active on Wikipedia, so if I haven't heard from you in a day or two, I'll reopen the Editrequest to add in the protected status. Thank you for all your help, and best of everything to you! – PIE ( CLIMAX )  18:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Aervanath (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You are so kind, Aervanath, thank you! – PIE ( CLIMAX )  20:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. :)--Aervanath (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Aervanath,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 06:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation; I've added my name to the interview list.--Aervanath (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)