MarciulionisHOF (talk | contribs) →Request for guidance: new section |
|||
Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
Hello, |
Hello, |
||
I've recently posted on ANI, asking for guidance on how to proceed with an instance where several editors were participating in 'I can't hear you'-style behavior, but after a couple days, the section I opened was archived, seemingly, without anyone taking a look. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive853#.27Not_listening_to_you.27-behavior] This type of behavior, outright ignoring presented recent sources, is discouraging. I'd much rather someone saying "please follow the rules!" when someone acts out (not listening, uses sources from 2 years ago, blames someone as a <insert stereotype naming>, etc.), than having to go through, seemingly, endless bureaucracy and witch hunting. Please advise. Thanks. [[User:MarciulionisHOF|MarciulionisHOF]] ([[User talk:MarciulionisHOF|talk]]) 01:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC) |
I've recently posted on ANI, asking for guidance on how to proceed with an instance where several editors were participating in 'I can't hear you'-style behavior, but after a couple days, the section I opened was archived, seemingly, without anyone taking a look. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive853#.27Not_listening_to_you.27-behavior] This type of behavior, outright ignoring presented recent sources, is discouraging. I'd much rather someone saying "please follow the rules!" when someone acts out (not listening, uses sources from 2 years ago, blames someone as a <insert stereotype naming>, etc.), than having to go through, seemingly, endless bureaucracy and witch hunting. Please advise. Thanks. [[User:MarciulionisHOF|MarciulionisHOF]] ([[User talk:MarciulionisHOF|talk]]) 01:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC) |
||
:Sorry, I can't help you here because the problem you complain about seems to be a generic case of "people disagree with me and don't want to listen to my arguments." To begin with, nobody is ''required'' to listen to you, and if you fail to obtain consensus for your views, then you should abide by that. There are, however, several options for continuing discussion listed at [[WP:DR]], which you may want to explore. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 06:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:26, 9 September 2014
Welcome to my talk page!
Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:
- Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.
- Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.
- If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: [[example article]].
- If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.
Follow-up to your AE comment
Do you have any further opinion to offer at WP:AE#WarKosign? Your last comment was August 31. I am planning to close this as no action but would hesitate if there is a net majority for a topic ban. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: Commented there, thanks. Sandstein 10:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
TBAN appeal
Hello Sandstein,
I'd like to ask for the TBAN to be lifted from me. I'd go for 1RR over Georgian-Armeno articles. I deeply believe this TBAN is not necessary to be on me because I am not engaged into a disruptive editing of any article here on wiki. I am greatly contributing to many Georgian articles which can have very marginal Armenian connections to it in some way and this is a motivation killer for creating a new articles or making even some minor edits which have some very marginal connection to Armenia. I promise that I'll go for 1RR and will not edit war and will try to do everything possible to discuss on the articles respective talk pages and if problems would arise I will ask for help from other admins. I know my mistakes and I am learning it as I acknowledge them. I have those minor mistakes I make so I am ready for those to never happen again. Jaqeli 13:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- The sanction was reinstated as recently as 15 August 2014, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive154#Jaqeli. I see no reason to lift it again, especially considering that your statement does not address your conduct which caused the sanction. The appeal is declined. Sandstein 15:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I just want you to know that whilst I respect you as a sysop, your recent closure of the deletion discussion about this article has made life extremely difficult for those of us working in the Ukraine crisis area. No one has any idea what this supposed "article" is about, how it is different from other articles, what title it should have. It is an absolute disaster, and now we have two articles being developed by different sets of editors with the same content area 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine and Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014). It greatly saddens me that you had an opportunity to solve this problem, but instead now there is no clear solution whatsoever. In the meantime, we have a mess with no potential for resolution. Next time you close such a discussion, please think of the editors on the ground that have to deal with the content messes created by such decisions. You don't have to clean it up, as an uninvolved party, but we do. And, to be frank, we can't really do so in this case, because there is "no clear solution", as you said. RGloucester — ☎ 16:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- As I see it, there is a disagreement among editors as to whether both articles should have the same scope, or whether the "invasion" article should cover only the most recent part of the conflict. As an admin, I can't resolve this by fiat - I can only try to find out whether there's consensus for a solution, which there wasn't. This will have to be resolved by the editors involved, perhaps via a RfC. Sandstein 16:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Plenty of sysops have taken tough decisions on the basis of policy and guidelines, even if "numerical" consensus was not in favour of such a decision. Regardless, I can understand that there was no "easy answer", nor an easy closure that would've resolved the situation. I just wanted to say that I don't see any way forward, at the moment, and the talk page of the article is making it clear that each person has a different conception of what the "article" should be about. Perhaps an RfC is appropriate. RGloucester — ☎ 16:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Books or Seasons?
I was wondering if it was possible to move Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 1) to Avatar: The Last Airbender (Book 1), Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 2) to Avatar: The Last Airbender (Book 2) and Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3) to Avatar: The Last Airbender (Book 3), to make them consistent with the The Legend of Korra books, since both series are in the same universe. I asking you because you seem the most active with The Legend of Korra articles. Or we can get a consensus, if that's possible. QuasyBoy (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks - I don't really care all that much about consistency between series, but if a move were to be made I'd rather move "book" to "season" as is standard with all other TV series. Sandstein 14:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I never understood why the Korra seasons were listed as books, considering the Avatar seasons are listed as seasons. Its probably because there was talk at one point about how there was going to be two books per season or something like that. So about the page moves concerning the Korra articles do you want make the moves or should I? QuasyBoy (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that's probably the reason. I recommend making a move request, as this might be controversial; I'd support it. Sandstein 15:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- The move request is up now: Talk:The Legend of Korra (Book 1)#Requested moves. QuasyBoy (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Request warning to be expunged. Thank you. v/r - TP 22:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Request for guidance
Hello, I've recently posted on ANI, asking for guidance on how to proceed with an instance where several editors were participating in 'I can't hear you'-style behavior, but after a couple days, the section I opened was archived, seemingly, without anyone taking a look. [1] This type of behavior, outright ignoring presented recent sources, is discouraging. I'd much rather someone saying "please follow the rules!" when someone acts out (not listening, uses sources from 2 years ago, blames someone as a <insert stereotype naming>, etc.), than having to go through, seemingly, endless bureaucracy and witch hunting. Please advise. Thanks. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I can't help you here because the problem you complain about seems to be a generic case of "people disagree with me and don't want to listen to my arguments." To begin with, nobody is required to listen to you, and if you fail to obtain consensus for your views, then you should abide by that. There are, however, several options for continuing discussion listed at WP:DR, which you may want to explore. Sandstein 06:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)