User talk:NYScholar/Archive 17

Requested move
Please give your reasons for this edit. The edit summary reads not closed by an administrator; non-consensus move of other article. In fact I am an administrator (not that I think I needed to be one to do this, but that's irrelevant, because I am one), and all that is needed to close the discussion is that no consensus to move seems likely after five days, which is I think true - in fact there's a rough consensus not to move.

This is of course the third listing on WP:RM. The first moved to this name. The second, which you initiated just recently, confirmed this decision, as does this one. Please accept it. Andrewa (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC) >>

I am not the only one disputing the name of this article; see the other editor who expressed position in support of this move. One needs to look at the reasons given in support and opposition and to weigh them as well as to look at numbers. There is no procedure for "votes" in a request name proposal. Consensus operates over time and takes time; the current usage of "CIA leak scandal" is more prevalent (in terms of dates of usage) than "Plame affair", which appears by now to have become obsolete. Scroll up for previous discussion. There is no attempt on my part to [rename] (move) this article [without prior discussion!]; someone else renamed another article contrary to Wikipedia policy (no request move proposal, etc.; another editor undid that change, which was not in keeping with policy and which was done by a user who has edited Wikipedia for only about a month, given log on id). I have not been "edit warring" and have not changed the name of this article; I have been discussing reasons that others have given which do not appear to me to be convincing. There is no role for "dispute resolution" here; there is no editing warring except for the person who changed the name of the other article w/o consensus in that article's talk page. The editing history comments are clear. --NYScholar (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC) [clarified further in brackets. --NYScholar (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)]

You need to look at the full editing history (over years as well as recent months) of the move logs pertaining to this article and to the other related articles. This request move [proposal] has a longstanding context. See the links to the logs and editing history. I do not find an "administrator" identity on the user pages that I checked. When discussion is ongoing (as on this talk page), and it is simply discussion, there is no edit warring or need for "dispute resolution." No harm occurs in discussion. Harm was, however, done to CIA leak scandal timeline by the non-administrator, relatively-new user id. simply jumping in and changing that article's name, referring to this article's talk page. There is no request move proposal there (on the other article's talk page), and the lead (currently, which I revised appropriately to match its subject, which is not "Plame affair" but the whole "CIA leak" and "CIA leak scandal" matter (as major U.S. news sources refer to it most recently in their own timelines). The move to change that article to "Plame affair timeline" failed--see the log/history, for appropriate reasons.  --NYScholar (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I fully endorse NY Scholar's position about keeping the dialogue open. There is no edit war going on. And there is no harm being done by continuing the discussion. And - not to argue the merits of the actual issue in this particular comment - but I do notice that very few of the people opposing the change seem to offer reasoned refutations of the numerous specific points offered by those in favor of a change.  Anyway - that's for a separate place.


 * The key thing is that - in the past (pre-internet) - matters like this frequently had changes in the names given to the issue by the media. The better to reflect the greater perspective that time and information brings to an occurrence.  eg - for several months what later became known as the "Watergate Scandal" was initially referred to as the "DNC break-in" or the "Watergate break-in".  As time went by - other related matters came to light - legal convictions and political embarrassment became part of the story - and lo and behold - it was seen as what it was. A SCANDAL.  Not an "affair" or a "controversy".  Once there were high-ranking political operatives resigning from the White House and being convicted in a court of law (does that ring a bell?)- it was undoubtedly a scandal.  Any other word would have been considered a weasel word.


 * Incidentally - the specific office that was the object of the Watergate break-in was the office of the DNC Chairman Larry O'Brien. Under the peculiar logic underlying the current name of this article - we would be calling the Watergate Scandal "The O'Brien Affair".  Point made... Davidpatrick (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have relisted the request at WP:RM. So now you two have another five days to get some arguments and support together, and then I'm afraid I think we should close it. Is that fair enough?


 * Closing the requested move doesn't prevent further discussion. It just gives us a baseline for further discussion, and allows us to clean up WP:RM.


 * But surely, you have better things to do? There's no support. Face facts. Andrewa (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's fine w/ me. Thanks.  True that I do have "better things to do"!
 * Re: "There's no support. Face facts": There is, however, some support if you read the whole discussion previous to this proposal (the at-least two before on this page) and comments by the two of us posting in "Support" in the context of the previous proposal comments.  If there were "no support," this proposal would not keep coming up and coming up again filed by a variety of editors over time; plus, the relevance of one name v. another does change over time as well. --NYScholar (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that if NYScholar really feels strongly about this, the move can be relisted. However, that doesn't mean that Andrewa's admin close should have been reverted. The expiration/closure of the RM request is a separate matter from the continuation of discussion on the general topic of renaming. The fact that there is a continuous low-level support for changing the article's name does not mean that a move request should stay open indefinitely. The current (past?) proposal is clearly not going to be successful. Dekimasu よ! 07:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * By way of explanation, when I removed the archiving in this edit Diffs, I did so too quickly without seeing the comment by Andrewa (just didn't see it there in the online green box version I was reading). I did not see Andrewa's reason for the green box archiving; I just was trying to enable others to add their comments to what I had intended to be an ongoing "poll" for purposes of discussion (by others, to whom I was responding at times).  I did not intend to step on an administrative "closing" of the request proposal (I hadn't seen any notice about its closing on the request move page where the request move was posted on Jan. 3, 2008--now accessible in history of that page).  So I apologize to Andrewa--I just hadn't seen the explanation of "closing" the request proposal.  I still think that it is useful to enable people to add their # comment to "support" or "oppose" for purposes of discussion.  Again, there is no edit war going on here, just a discussion of the pros and cons of the names being suggested.  If someone still wants to add comments, it is currently still possible to do so, thanks to Andrewa's reposting the req. move prop. notice, but I do understand that eventually (in a few more days) it will be acted upon again.  I urge people reading this page to consider the most recent references in mainstream news accounts to this subject and to see what it is named by them.  A Google search is not sensitive to dates of postings and one has to look at dates of usage to see currency of usage as well.  Again, sorry to Andrewa.  --NYScholar (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As of today (Jan. 10, 2008), a Google search for "CIA leak scandal" (with the phrase in quotation marks) yields 34,000 hits, many of which are recently dated post 2005-2006) items; a comparable search for the phrase "Plame affair" in quotation marks yields over 100,000 [102,000] hits, but many are to posts dated from 2003-2005 [and to Wikipedia itself and Wikis, which should not be counted], and thus suggest a name that is or has become (more) obsolete and that will now and in time be less recognizable. If one needs "(2003)" added to "CIA leak scandal" (as it had been before before an earlier renaming/move), then that resolves any problem of "ambiguity".  Articles are often renamed when their earlier names become less current usage (have less "currency" of "usage"). --NYScholar (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC) [Addition. --NYScholar (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)] [added exact figure. --NYScholar (talk) 07:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)]
 * As of today (Jan. 11, 2008), a Google search for "Plamegate" (phrase w/in q. marks), which is listed in List of scandals with "-gate" suffix, yields 216,000 hits (though, as stated above, dates of entries need checking and refs. to Wikipedia articles and other Wikis, etc., based on them, need weeding out re: "current usage". --NYScholar (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That inclusion of Plamegate in a "List of scandals...." should put to rest any argument that the "CIA leak scandal" (aka "Plamegate" and "Plame affair") is not a "scandal". Any reading of sources given throughout this and related articles makes very apparent that it is a "scandal," specifically an American political scandal, but not a sex scandal, which the word "affair" misleadingly and ambiguously implies. --NYScholar (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * On the model of "Watergate scandal" a more consistent, less ambiguous, and more neutral name for this article (instead of "Plame affair") is either "Plamegate scandal" or "CIA leak scandal (2003)." --NYScholar (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I have to say that I find this explanation inadequate. When did you realise that you had made a mistake? Where did you get the idea that I'm not an administrator? Why didn't you bother to check? And what are you going to do about it now?


 * Nothing is stopping you from restoring my work. It would take you a little more time than it took me, but I would regard that as justice. Nobody is likely to revert you on the grounds that you are not an administrator; For one thing, the poll has already been closed by an admin, and for another, there is no policy preventing a non-admin from closing a poll, provided the conditions for closing it have been met (they have) and no admin powers are needed (they aren't). And if they did, welcome to the club.


 * I don't expect that, although I think it would be the right thing to do. But I think we at least now have an undertaking from you that you will accept the closure of this move request, and thank you for that. I would hope that this also includes not immediately raising another. It has IMO been obvious since before Christmas that no consensus to move was possible. Andrewa (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The request has already been relisted, by me. NYScholar left it in a half-closed state, and it seemed better to relist it than to risk a revert war.


 * But if this behaviour were to become common, no contested move request would ever be closed. Note that before the closure was reverted, this was already the second identical move request. It was raised immediately after the closure of the first, with the (IMO false) claim that the admin who closed the first request had done so in error.


 * IMO no new material has been added since. There is lots of discussion, but it simply repeats the same arguments in slightly different terms. And note also that NYScholar has in several places demanded that any editor joining the discussion read all the (extensive and repetitive) archives first. Andrewa (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

These kinds of insinuations are unnecessary; what happened to WP:AGF? I already explained that I did not see Andrewa's comment in the once-green box (it was hard to see in the green online) and that I realized that when I wrote the comment above as such; There is nothing inappropriate about discussing a controversial move proposal; in fact, that is what is recommended for controversial move proposals. The move proposals for this article are recurrent and always controversial. The article itself is a controversial article. Re: administrative status: I did (as I state more than once already) look at andrewa's user page when I saw the green box added [via the user name link in editing history: I did not actually see the comment about "closing" the proposal then in the talk page then-green box, and I had not clicked on "diffs" either at that time], and did not see there [on Andrewa's user page] an "administrator" user box and thought the person not to be an administrator. [Since then and reading the ref. to "another administrator" in his/her comment later,] I have apologized in good faith, and I expect what I state to be taken as posted in good faith. The opposite is being done and that is not in keeping with Wikipedia editing policy on WP:AGF and Etiquette. My main point, however, is that there has been extensive discussion of moves of this article for a very long period of time and anyone entering this debate does need to familiarize himself or herself with the previous discussions. That is what Wikipedia recommends not merely what I am suggesting. Words like "demanded" etc. are not neutral and an administrator needs to maintain neutrality. Administrators, like any other Wikipedia user/editor, are still subject to Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines. The desire to close a proposal simply because there is a backlog so as to act on them (without consulting prior discussions) is really not sensitive to those who are making such proposals in good faith. This talk page is not the place to attack editors for making proposals; editors should not be attacked personally [or] their motives impugned for good-faith edits or [for] apologies for having made a mistake. That is unacceptable behavior in Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC) [tc. --NYScholar (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)]

If one is interested in the naming of this article and in the many editors' positions on supporting and/or opposing various names over these many months and years, there is an extensive editing history and talk page archive of arguments to examine. Some of the reasons given in opposition do not seem both well considered and convincing and do not hold up in the context of current searches of common usage of various names. All reasons are not equal in weight; some are more convincing than others. If one is to make considered decisions, one has to consider the reasons more carefully in the context of previous discussions. Otherwise, the talk page header about improving the article (including names of articles) is being unheeded. --NYScholar (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC) [added some bracketed clarifications; it is hard to reconstruct when I thought what, but I do know that when I saw the green archiving, I did not see any comment about the closing of the proposal, and reacted quickly (too quickly, as I say above in my apology). It is offensive to me that what I state in my apology itself has now been called into question, in effect, calling me a liar. That is just plain wrong. --NYScholar (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)]

There is no "work" to be "restored" here. In reply to Andrewa's earlier question about "when" I realized that he/she is an administrator: it is not clear to me on his/her user page that he/she is (no user box that I am familiar with says "administrator"), and I had looked at the user page after the reference he/she made to "another administrator" around January 10, 2008. I have been busy with other things (and not even at home at times or near a computer) and dealt with constructing the apology above when I had time to do so. I do not want to restore a green box archiving to the ongoing "support" and "oppose" polling area because I want to enable others to be able to add to it (using the # sign first and no skipped lines between comments) if they want to do so. There have been some opposition #'d comments added since I removed the green archiving. Green-archiving an ongoing poll was undoing what on Jan. 3 was a reopened proposal. The administrator who had previously closed the request move proposal was a brand-new administrator who had not read the prior discussions before doing so and who has taken a position him/herself in opposition to the move, saying that the "CIA leak scandal"/"Plamegate"/"Plame affair" is not a "scandal," which is absolutely incorrect and contrary to the sources cited in this article (now called "Plame affair"). There is no support in the 3rd-party published sources for the viewpoint that this subject is not a "scandal"; it is listed with the category "American political scandals" ("Plamegate", "CIA leak scandal") still--as said before too, see the "See also". Given what the newly-minted administrator had done, I objected to it, and still do. (Andrewa came along later, and I did not until he/she identified him/herself as such [via the phrase "another administrator" in a comment] know that he/she is an administrator when he greenboxed the discussion without apparently having consulted the previous green-boxed archived discussions or seen the point that it had been closed by a newly-appointed administrator over the Christmas/New Year holiday before enough others would have been able to comment on the proposal. If one scrolls up or looks at the editing history, one can see that there is nothing nefarious going on [in reopening the request move proposal], just a concern for enough editors after Christmas/New Year's holiday to consider the proposal.  Another editor, who supports the move, has expressed concerns too that one be able to discuss reasons for it without being shut down.  Again: See WP:AGF.  --NYScholar (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC) [additions in brackets and ref. to AGF]. --NYScholar (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've not replied to your extensive comments because there is very little new to say. I have looked through the past comments to all discussions and there is no indication of consensus to move. I have looked at the title used in other media coverage and again these seem very mixed with various combinations of palm/wilson/niger - case/incident/affair/scandle/gate. Your own evidence suggest a higher raw number of google hits for Palme affair/Palmegate. I have explained why the word scandal raises problems with POV, it is not wikipedia job to make assertions especially in article titles, and there are specific guidelines against it. If there was a clear case that media coverage had settle on this term then it would be fine to use the term, however this does not seem to be the case.
 * This discussion now seems to be draining attention, endless reopening of the case does not seem to be taking us anywhere. WP:CON states
 * It is very easy to create the appearance of a changing consensus simply by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people will discuss the issue.
 * and this seems to be what is happening here, yet each time it is reopened a few more oppose votes accumulate. WP:POINT is also worth a read.
 * Hopefully when the next admin closes the case we can all respect their decision. Maybe it will be worth reconsidering again in a year.--Salix alba (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You have not taken into account the dates of usage. This naming/renaming proposal relates to time of usage; whereas some names were more common usage in the past, other names are more common usage now.  Your re-statement above (of points that in some cases you say that you have not read and, without reading them, judge repetitive) is inaccurate. --NYScholar (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In turn, I refer you and others back to the WP cited above: WP:POINT: That reference pertains to "bad-faith editors", which insinuates that I and David Patrick are editing or discussing "in bad faith", which is incorrect. Both of us are editing and discussing this matter in good faith.  It is offensive to suggest otherwise by linking to "Refusal to 'get the point'."  The "point" being made by David Patrick and me [which others appear not to be "getting"] is that people are looking at numbers of Google hits indiscriminately, without looking at the dates of the articles referred to via those hits and currency of usage; common usage also must take into account currency (what something is currently called by most people if that term is neutral and correct--a "scandal" is used throughout Wikipedia names when the names are accurate.  In this case, as reading the sources for the articles will show, it is currently still common usage to refer to this subject as an "American political scandal."  The point is made throughout many people's comments above (not just my more recent comments).  --NYScholar (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC) [added clarifications in brackets. --NYScholar (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)]

On January 10, 2008, Andrewa wrote (scroll up): " all that is needed to close the discussion [I think s/he means request proposal] is that no consensus to move seems likely after five days"; the five days go through January 15, 2008. It is now only January 13. I suggest that we just take a look at this situation on January 15, and allow the "five days" given to occur prior to the acting on the request move proposal. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * [We can discuss whatever we want to discuss pertaining to the "improvement" of this article; one does not close a discussion; one closes the request proposal by acting on it. Anyone is free in the future to address the issues if he or she wants to. [added brackets --NYScholar (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)]

Speaking for myself, I don't have time to deal with this anymore. I have work-related deadlines to meet and they are during this five day time period. So that's it for me. I addressed the non-good-faith assumptions because they are unfair and demeaning [and should not have been made, espec. by administrators!]. Please just comment on the actual issues of the proposed name(s) of the article, not on contributors making the proposals. Thank you. WP:NPA. --NYScholar (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC); --NYScholar (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have already undertaken not to close this (third) listing until five days have expired since the relisting, and I will stick to that undertaking. I am pleased that you appear to have undertaken not to again revert a valid closing. I am hopeful that you will also wait a decent interval before listing this move once again.


 * I think it's worth waiting in view of that undertaking. But I'd also point out that the five days expired before Christmas, and that there have been no new proposals or arguments in favour of the move since then.


 * This section is headed "dispute resolution". It is not part of the move discussion, although it arises from that discussion. It is about your behaviour, and in particular seeking an outcome that does not indefinitely delay closing this move request. At the risk of repetition, I point out that this does not prevent further discussion, it just baselines the current (rough) consensus not to move.


 * I'm still inclined to the view that your mistakes are genuine, in accordance with assuming good faith and despite the obvious observation that they would serve as effective tactics to frustrate the process if that were your intention, and if they were unchallenged. But if you're that fallible, frankly this makes your lectures on policy and procedure pointless. It is the blind leading the sighted, or attempting to. Worse, both they and your repeated insistence that any newcomer to the debate first wade through the repetitive archives discourage both new contributors and new ideas.


 * And continued discussion without new ideas is also pointless. Food for thought? Andrewa (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I find this discussion of me, a contributor, useless. The focus is supposed to be on the proposal. If you want editors who have not encountered you before to know that you are an administrator, please add a clear(er) identification of yourself as such on your user page. Thank you. (I have not intentionally "reverted" any closing of this proposal; it was clear that I proposed it and that I intended to be taking a poll on it (from when I first proposed it); the new administrator who archived my poll while I had intended to have it be ongoing for at least several days or more did so by introducing a typographical error in the archiving process; that person added two spaces which made it impossible to read the comment he/she posted in the archiving box. I simply deleted two spaces so that I and others could read the whole comment: please see the editing history. [See Talk:Plame affair.]  Andrewa came along after that and, despite the clear statement that the holidays were intervening in the ability to gain comments, re-archived the box.  I did not see Andrewa's comment about closing the proposal in the green archived box. That is the only "mistake" for which I have apologized, and it was an inadvertent error, since I did not at the time realize that (a) the proposal had been "closed"; or (b) the one who "closed" it was an "administrator"; that is why my editing history comment says that the archiving had been done by someone who appeared not to be an administrator. I had simply clicked on a user box in the name in editing history (not in the green archived box) and had not recognized anything about the person being an administrator. After realizing what had happened, I apologized. There is nothing more to it. I accepted Andrewa's (Andrewa's, I repeat) decision to allow the discussion to go on for five days. Please scroll up. Enough said about this. No "food for thought." At this point, rehashing this over and over had been a further waste of time. The focus needs to be on the merits of "support" and "oppose" reasons for the request move proposal, not on Andrewa and not on me, or on any other individual contributor/user/editor/administrator. These appear to be red herrings. Please focus on the proposal itself and the responses (reasons given). Thanks again. --NYScholar (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC) [added sec. link. (cont., next para.) --NYScholar (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC) It is entirely appropriate for me and others interested in the name of this article to expect newcomers to familiarize themselves with prior proposals and prior discussions of them on in the archived sections and archived talk pages. Generally, controversial articles refer to such prior discussions and alert people to consult them--Guidelines for controversial articles; see top of this talk page for related links. --NYScholar (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)]

[Note: I have moved material previously on my current talk page and then in Talk:Plame affair to this archive page 17. ... I was away from any computer from December 27 through December 31st, 2007; in the U.S., for many people, espec. for academics, the "Christmas and New Year holiday" begins before Christmas and goes for a few days after January 1st; many academics are on their "holiday break" from just after exam grades are due (for some before, for others after Christmas) until their second semesters or trimesters begin; for some the third week [or] end of January, for others February 2008. I will be busy with non-Wikipedia work for most [of] January and February 2008, at least. --NYScholar (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)]

Talk page clutter
I keep seeing your name in the history of talk pages with unneccesary templates. Please don't add blp to non-biographies, or talkheader to any talk pages, unless absolutely necessary. Please don't add talkheader and controversy to the same page. Talk pages are not meant to be template farms. Thanks. --kingboyk (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In my view, this is not a reasonable request and it has no precedent. Many talk pages for controversial topics feature both templates.  Please cite actual Wikipedia policy to support your request.  The templates that I added are reasonable given the articles the talk pages relate to.  I have no time for these kinds of gratuitious requests that have no support for them in Wikipedia policies.  I will be archiving this exchange in due course.  I am too busy to deal with such gratuitous comments.  If you have a problem with a specific template on a specific talk page, please place that comment on the talk page for discussion by variety of editors and for achieving consensus about that particular article's talk page.  That is the proper procedure.  For your future information, WP:BLP applies to articles that concern living persons (that discuss living persons) as well as to articles that are biographies of living persons.  Please read the project page and its talk page/archived talk pages, where these matters are discussed.  Thank you.  --NYScholar (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)