Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Masterhatch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 03:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 05:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Masterhatch (talk • contribs • logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

1 Statement of the dispute
2 Response
3 Outside view
4 Discussion

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

[edit] Description

Masterhatch feels that the given names and surnames of various hockey players of non-English heritages should be written without diacritics, which is not how the names are written in the original languages (usually Finnish or Czech). He essentially disagrees with {{R from title without diacritics}} and that the title without diacritics is the correct one. Recently, this occured at Jyrki Seppä where he proceeded to move it back to the spelling that he made it at (Jyrki Seppa) claiming that authors had no consensus to move to where the spellings are correct in the native languages. 04:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

Masterhatch's Move Log documents all of these activities.

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

User talk:Masterhatch has various users (not only myself) trying to discuss his edits. The latest is from a Finnish-speaking user who has also raised the same issues. In particular:

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
JIP | Talk 11:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Elrith 17:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

--Krm500 09:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
--,,n 00:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

I am not sure where i am supposed to defend myself here, but this looks as good as any.

user:Ryulong seems to think that he is right and i am a vandal that will not listen to reason. he seems to think that there is a consensus for using diacritics in aritcle titles. Well, there is no consensus either way. Ever since discussions have stalled on the subject a few months ago, i have been trying to maintain order and balance. Until there is a consensus, things should be left at status quo and that all the moves without consensus during the 6 month long discussion should be reverted. That means all (hockey) articles should go back to the original title by the original author. that means if the article started out with diacritics, it should stay there. And if it started out without diacritics, it should stay there. Ryulong seems to think that he is right and now has ~~childishly~~ edited all the redirects so that a move back is not possible without an admin's help. I have had many discussions with various users and have been involved in move requests for several articles. here are five examples:

Quebec Nordiques successful move using requested moves
Teemu Selänne no consensus using requested moves (although those in favour of a move out-numbers those opposed by one)
Marian Gaborik successful move using requested move
Jaromir Jagr successful move using discussion
Jaroslav Spacek successful move using discussion

as one can see, i am not the only one who feels this way. If one reads all the comments and discussions, the "pro-diacritic" side (for lack of a better term) has only ever come up with one argument: It's spelt wrong! No sources or wikipedia policies or guidelines have been quoted. but of course, it isn't spelt wrong in English as english doesn't spell english worng.

Virtually all English websites, newspapers, reference books, magazines, internet blogs (not that they actually count or anything), official NHL publications, media, and players' sweaters avoid the use of diacritics. very few english publications about hockey players actually use diacritics (or other foreign characters). Time and time again, i have posed this question: what is wrong with using the most common spelling in English as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use English words and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). In a nutshell, Wikipedia:Naming conventions says, and i quote: "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." Very few English speakers know the first thing about diacritics. Rarely ever do English speakers come across diacritics in English publications. Diacritics are not what the majority of english speakers would most easily recognise. Like i said, i have posed this question "what is wrong with using the most common spelling in English?" and have never gotten a response except for "it is spelt wrong". Well, we here on wikipedia are not about original research and all we can do is use references from other writings in English. If the references we are using don't use diacritics, then we are going against the very foundations of wikipedia by including them.

Here Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) is an on-going discussion related to the topic. While i am not the only one who believes in "most common english spelling", i am probably the most vocal and that is why i seem to get in hot water. Actually, i have only been getting in hot water because ryulong has moved several articles away from the original spelling and then called me a vandal for reverting his edits.

so what do i want long term? Simple: i want all articles on wikipedia to follow the most common name in English, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions. However the article is named or spelt most commonly in english, i want to see that as the article title here on wikipedia. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule, such as in the case of disambiguation.

What do i want short term? Simple: for all hockey player articles to go back to the original author's spelling (with or without diacritics) until a consensus has been reached. Then i want status quo held until such time. Several player articles started out with diacritics and several started out without. Go back to the original spellings and let's hammer it out here Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) and come up with a consensus. What else do i want? I want equality. certain users unilaterally moved dozens upon dozens of articles (without consensus or discussion) and when i tried to revert them back, i got blocked while nothing happened to them. Masterhatch 04:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

--In ur base, killing ur dorfs 18:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC) : From what WP:NC says, it's all rather...unclear. I think that the explaination given works.

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

certain users unilaterally moved dozens upon dozens of articles (without consensus or discussion) and when i tried to revert them back, i got blocked while nothing happened to them.

He doesn't believe in capital letters either? That's hard-core.

Seriously, I think this is a step-back-and-take-a-breather sort of dispute. It could be much more easily (and congenially) solved by an RfC on the subject matter (i.e. diacritical marks), rather than one on user conduct. Auto movil 03:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 09:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC) Amen! I hope that the aboverequested content RfC is implemented shortly and this one just goes away.

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_comment_Masterhatch_b301.html"