Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:42, 22 September 2012

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Numerous Vietnam articles moved

IIO has just moved dozens of Vietnam-related geography articles. The edit summaries claim he is reverting my moves. These are the moves I made a year ago, i.e. this is the same issue that he has been shopping around for weeks to so many admins and so many forums. Not only that, but many are not really reverts since various unnecessary disambiguators have been added to titles. For example, Buon Ma Thuot has become Buôn Ma Thuột city, and Dien Ban District ‎ has been moved to Điện Bàn district. (Note the clever lower casing.) Kauffner (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I should add that IIO's current RMs at Talk:My_Linh#Requested_move and Talk:Lac_Long_Quan#Requested_move do not seem to be getting much traction, which may or may not have led to the use of this tactic. Kauffner (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought I'd find Kauffner here. Jenks24 we had 3 RMs on VN place names, all 3 RMs support VN place names and instead we have the vast majority of VN places undiscussed moved and locked. That's merely mentioning the inconsistency between 3RM results pointing one direction and 1 User doing the exact opposite. That's without mentioning all the other hi-jinks, (i) deletion of "please stop" messages from Ajax Smack 06 Aug 2011, Gimmetoo, Prolog and who knows who else, then moving 900x articles under own logged in name, (ii) deletion of failed RM bot notices, (iii) use of Editing logged out in order to mislead, (iv) proxying admins by 600x G6 dbmove "uncontroversial move", (v) removing articles after having G6 refused - see Malik Shabazz on that one, (vi) locking redirects as got User Dolovis banned, (vii) straight out untruths - "I must add that the continued focus on moving articles I wrote to less desirable titles is both petty and vindictive." rather than "I must add that the continued focus on restoring articles which I did not contribute to at all", (viii)... and on and on.

Jenks24, if someone did all this (i) 1000s of undiscussed moves to French names, (ii) deletion of failed RM bot notices to promote French names, (iii) use of Editing logged out in order to promote French names, (iv) proxying admins by 600x G6 dbmove "uncontroversial move" to promote French names, (v) removing articles after having G6 refused, (vi) locking redirects after undiscussed moves to French names, you wouldn't be blessing them - it's acceptable behaviour. You certainly wouldn't be using your admin tools to help Kauffner enforce his undiscussed moves against other user's reverts as you did here, (what exactly happened there anyway?). You said when you became an admin you wouldn't use your tools/position to promote your own minority view on foreigners names.

What editors need is honesty, transparency, some moral fibre and principle, not finding ways to circumvent the results of RMs? I would urge you Jenks24, to use whatever influence you have on Kauffner to communicate that even for a just and right cause (against foreign names) the behaviours (i)-(vii) above are not things which you Jenks24 personally encourage Kauffner to continue. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I was careful to check, in each of the 80 or so reversions of undiscussed moves counter RM results I have made, that all were Kauffner, none were by any other editor. This leaves another 500 or 600 towns where Kauffner should be made to clean up his own moves counter RMs. Do you think he'll do that if you ask him? It should be him clearing up his own moves. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

And on the subject of capitalizing Điện Bàn/Điện Bàn district/Điện Bàn district, Kauffner made so many inconsistent Dolovis style redirect edicts to lock his undiscussed moves that result is already a hotchpotch, undoing it is inevitably difficult, why do you think Kauffner's spent July protecting them? Jenks24, dip into any Vietnam geography category and random and try yourself restoring a handle of his undiscussed moves counter Talk:Cà Mau No.2 and you'll see what I mean. This should be your job, an admin who said he'd work in RMs should be supporting RM results not assisting editors who use any trick to contravene them. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• This stuff is slowly driving me insane. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive239#Requesting a moratorium on undiscussed diacritics-related moves to Vietnamese articles. Jenks24 (talk) 04:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Private note:

You're asking questions that, IMO, do not accurately reflect the issue at hand. You knew the moves you recently made would be controversial, you knew Kauffner in particular would be very irritated by the moves (and, presumably, so will the other 50% of editors who favoured non-diacritics), you knew Kauffner would complain to me about them, and you probably also knew there was a reasonable chance this might end up at a noticeboard. I'm failing to see why you thought it would be a good idea. Your time would have been much better spent making a strong multi-move nomination. Jenks24 (talk) 05:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

underlined 1. I don't know where the 50% comes from. Things have moved on. Did you look at the result of the Talk:Dominik Halmosi RM? or Talk:Ca Mau. If you discount the editors known to be anti-diacritic who were canvassed by Kauffner for his recent RfC, it would not be 23 vs. 16, it would be 23 vs 7 or 8, even for Vietnamese diacritics. So please. Adjust the 50%. Only a tiny handful are against diacritics. And that's why we have RMs.

underlined 2. Actually I thought you'd have higher principles. I thought that deep down you know that Kauffner's behaviour is not cricket. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the naming conventions talk page, it looks roughly 50/50 to me. Skimming the discussion, Kauffner left notes for some editors, but so did Obiwankenobi, so I don't think it right to discount only one side. If your 23 vs. 16 value is correct, that's still 40%. Point 2: I'm unimpressed by the behaviour of both of you. Jenks24 (talk) 06:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to say this annoys me a little, you say "but so did Obiwankenobi/KarlB", on what basis do you say this? In fact what Obiwan/Karl did was merely go back to RMs from which Kauffner had only invited the antis, and invited all. Obiwan did not go off to WP:CONSERVATISM WP:CHINA or wherever and canvass, Obiwan actually cleaned up, and again, you seem unable to make any distinction between cheating and gaming - and simply being honest and fair - which is what Obiwan was being In ictu oculi (talk) 08:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

My point was that I shouldn't be "discounting" any opinions because both sides have been notified. I honestly haven't looked into it enough to have an opinion on who did what and whether it was right or not. Jenks24 (talk) 09:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I assume you mean Kauffner's Vietnamese RfC when KarlB took him to ANI? Please count again, even with the slanted proposal it is 23 vs 16, 23 vs 7-8 if the ones directly canvassed from WikiProkect:Conservatism and suchlike are removed. That isn't 50%, it is 20% on Ca Mau, 0% on Dominik Halmosi.

So please revise down your figure. It won't hurt you to claim 20% rather than 50%.

Another point which I just noticed: I very strongly object to you making a charge of "fait accompli." I do not do Dolovis-style redirect edits to secure my moves, as proof of that to you, I have just moved (In ictu oculi moved page Phú Ninh District to Phu Ninh District over redirect: self-reverted to demonstrate that no redirect-edit locks involved) (undo). Compare to Kauffner's redirect-edit activity in July. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I'll take your word and revise to 40%. Regarding fait acompli, I was just quoting the ArbCom finding and pointing out that both of you have made mass-moves. Jenks24 (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, you made it sound as I've been doing what Kauffner's been doing. You made it sound as if we have been doing the same thing. Why did you do that? You know that I do not lie, I do not IP, I do not do dbmoves and I do not lock redirects. As much as we disagree on foreigner's names, I'm rather disappointed that you don't discern some principles in behaviour. Oh well. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You've both made mass-moves, that is what I was saying and that is what I said. If you read something else into that, then I apologise but it was not what I meant. Jenks24 (talk) 09:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

There's not much point in reiterating again the difference between an undiscussed move against a RM, and a revert of an undiscussed move against an RM.

As regards your use of admin tools to accomplish the 2nd removal of Vietnamese diacritics from the dynasty article below: The 2nd dbmove which Kauffner said someone reverted is now a dead link 500408374. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying there isn't a difference. I'm just saying I think they're both disruptive and shouldn't have been done. As I explain in the section below, that's a dead link because it was deleted. The db-move Kauffner requested was reverted by ༆. If an admin had declined it, I would not have used my admin tools to make the move. Jenks24 (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

In what way is reverting an undiscussed move counter to 3 RMs "disruptive"? Disruptive to what exactly? It's not disruptive to the result of the RM, it's not disruptive to those who expressed a view, it's not disruptive to the editors who created those 800 geo articles with Vietnamese spellings - which is 20 or 30 editors, from familiar article stalwarts like Dr Blofeld through to Vietnamese editors. So you have 20 or 30 articles creators, you have 10 or 20 people participating in RMs, and how exactly is it "disruptive" to them to see their edits, article creations and RM decisions upheld?

Can't you see the difference between:

(A) upholding RM decisions and having yet-another RM on one hand, and

(B) subverting RM results using undiscussed moves, IPs, dbmoves, talk-page deletes, fait accompli redirect locks?

To whom exactlty is it "disruptive" to be upholding RM decisions and reverting moves counter them? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It's disruptive because you are causing a disruption (see this discussion, AN, etc.) by doing it. It has disrupted several hours of my life and, presumably, others. I fear discussing this with you is futile, as we really don't seem to be on the same wavelength, but here goes: you are essentially doing the same thing as Kauffner did a year ago. He had a RM or two go the way he wanted and then mass-moved articles, citing said RMs. You have done the exact same thing. The one thing that can be said about Kauffner's moves is that he may have genuinely believed what he was doing would be uncontroversial (and perhaps not, I'm no mind reader), but you definitely did know that doing this would be controversial. Are you saying that all the articles you moved were created at the diacritics version? Because of the several that I checked, most had not, and had been moved to the diacritic title with an undiscussed move. So, well you say you are just reverting undiscussed moves and cite RMs in support of what you, Kauffner could make the exact same claim (and, basically, did) a year ago. I get that in your mind you see yourself as "upholding" RM decisions, but please also try to understand that Kauffner probably thought the same thing a year ago. Lastly, even if we take every accusation you make about Kauffner as true, can you not see that just because you have followed the rules, or have been ethical, or are just are genuinely better person, you can still do things that are disruptive? Do you not get that your justification for causing this disruption has essentially been "but Kauffner has been more disruptive"? Two wrongs do not make a right. Jenks24 (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• It would seem from the above that IIO is obsessed with figuring out which V-pop singer I wrote about. So here is the big reveal: It's Toc Tien, a current teen favorite. IIO has proposed moving her article to Tóc Tiên (singer) as part his list at Talk:My_Linh#Requested_move. I consider this to be a "less desirable title" even if you disregard the issue of diacritics. As far as my earlier moves go, aren't geography titles supposed to conform with WP:PLACE? None of the authorities recommended there use Vietnamese diacritics. The RMs we are talking about were not archived or otherwise made available for use as precedents. The only reason IIO knows about some "no consensus" RM from last year is because he researches my edit history. There have been a lot of RMs in the last year, and they have gone both ways. Kauffner (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
• I note the RM at Talk:Cà Mau was advertised as "housekeeping" to restore the earlier "no consensus" Can Tho RM, but it gets used here as a precedent all the same. Kauffner (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• The comments here suggest that the tennis player names-with-diacritics wars were deliberate overriding by In ictu oculi of Misplaced Pages guidelines (and caused MakeSense64 to quit Misplaced Pages for an indefinite period—he still has not returned). This sort of nastiness and fanaticism is not good for Misplaced Pages, and not good for retention of capable editors. Surely article titles should be decided by Misplaced Pages policies, facts, and logic, rather than by the number of cronies—armed with tennis rackets or hockey sticks—one can bring to an RM. LittleBen (talk) 06:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Brow monument and brow monument trail

hi. i am just inquiring about my write up on brow monument and brow monument trail. apparently it was deleted? any idea why? i thought it was moving along smoothly and had been acceptedAbearfellow (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, everything has gone smoothly. The article was accepted and is now at Brow Monument and Brow Monument Trail. When moving the article into main space (i.e. making the article live) Dcshank made a misclick and accidentally moved it to Misplaced Pages:Brow Monument and Brow Monument Trail, which I deleted after he then moved it properly to Brow Monument and Brow Monument Trail. All articles should not have the "Misplaced Pages" prefix (e.g. an article should be at United States, not Misplaced Pages:United States) because we only use "Misplaced Pages" for instruction pages, such as Misplaced Pages:Introduction, and not our actual encyclopedia articles. Hope this helps, but feel free to ask any follow-up questions. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Phew, thanks. i was a bit worried there.Abearfellow (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Glad I could help clear things up. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Categories in redirects

Hi, I noticed that you removed a category on a redirection page: Misplaced Pages:IPA for Kölsch, which I restored. It appears that many editors do not seem to know that categories are not only possible on redirection pages, in fact, they are even desirable in many cases. There are countless predefined categories for usage on redirection pages to help classify the type of a redirect page - see the Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). templates for details. We also use categories on redirection pages to list a target article under different keywords in the same category (to help people searching the category tree for certain keywords). There are many scenarios, where several different subtopics redirect into a single article and the target article should be listed in categories different from its redirects, for example if those categories apply to the title of the redirection page only, not to the target page.

I haven't checked if you removed categories from other redirects as well, but if you did, please put them back in. They have been put there for a reason. :-) Greetings. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, I know that redirects can be categorised and I often do it myself, generally in the form of those "R from/to ..." templates that you mentioned. Seeing as that redirect was on your watchlist, you may be aware that I recently moved all of those IPA pages from Misplaced Pages space to Help space. In doing so I noticed that, while many of those IPA pages have redirects (I would put a rough estimate between 50 and 100), Misplaced Pages:IPA for Kölsch was the only one that was categorised. I came to the conclusion that, while there are plenty of cases where categorising redirects are the norm, this did not appear to one of them and I removed the category so it was in line with the other redirects. It's not a big deal to me and I'm not going to remove the category again, but if you really think it's useful I'd suggest adding the category to the other redirects because the next time someone ends up going through all those pages they'll probably come to the same conclusion I did. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick answer. Thinking about it again, I still find it useful to have the Kölsch redirect categorized. I will consider adding categories to some of the other IPA redirects as well, but it may prove to be difficult to decide if a category is actually useful or not for languages I don't know myself. I guess, someone needs to start... Cheers, --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Much Haddam

Thanks for the move! I just wanted to leave a note to say I was totally impressed that you zapped the dab too. That was going to be my next order of business. France3470 (talk) 13:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Jenks24 (talk) 13:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Ireland on the move

First it was Taiwan, then it was Ivory Coast, and now it's Ireland. See here. Is any country safe? Kauffner (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)