Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-12-05/Cecil Blachford

Where is the dispute?

 * Cecil Blanchford and Cecil Blachford

Who is involved?
Just a list of the users involved. For example:


 * DJSasso
 * Dolovis

What is the dispute?
This issue concerns an article for a hockey player named “Cecil Blachford”. The first article was created on 2 September 2006. The article was misspelled as Cecil Blanchford and 15 edits had been made before this issue arose. The second article Cecil Blachford was created 16 October 2008 and four edits had been made to this article.

DJSasso discovered the misspelling and redirected the original misspelled article to the newer article, effectively hiding the full edit history of the article.

Dolovis undid the redirect, merged the content of the newer article into the original article and made a page move request via (db-move). This was done to preserve the edit history of the first created article.

Rather than perform the move request, DJSasso reversed the edits of Dolovis and started this discussion which outlines the issue of the dispute. Both parties have consented to the use of a mediator to help to resolve this minor dispute.

What would you like to change about this?
I would like to preserve the edit history of the original article.

How do you think we can help?
Seeking a 3rd party admin, who is not a member of the ice hockey project, to give his/her thoughts on what the proper procedure is when duplicate articles exist.

Discussion
The above discription is inaccurate, moving the one article over top of the other article will hide the full edit history. Redirecting as I have done, has preserved the edit history of both articles. If his goal is to preserve the edit history that is what I have done, cutting and pasting the contents from one page to another page and then moving the page that you pasted to over top of the other page will hide the edit history of the article you cut the content from. Acheiving the exact opposite of his above stated desire to preserve the edit histories. When you do it the way I did it, all you have to do is navigate directly to the redirect and press the history button and you can see the full history of the older article. When you do it the way he desires to have it done, you have to delete the new article to move the old one to its location, in doing so you delete the entire edit history of the newer article, thus hiding the edit history of the newer article from everyone but admins. Considering the older article was a stub which contained two sentences and the newer article was a well fleshed out article that contained everything the older article had, using his desired method would completely remove the attribution to the author of all the content with zero benefit. So in summary to be honest, I am not sure why this is an issue. Going here and hitting the history button will show the entire history of the original article thus preserving it like he requests whereas deleting the other article will lose the attribution to Alaney2k for his work unless you are an admin who can see deleted edits. -DJSasso (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not an administrator, but I do know that it is possible to merge the histories (as well as the content) of two articles. I recommend finding a bored administrator and following the procedure outlined at WP:HISTMERGE. Mediation would seem to be unnecessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How to fix cut-and-paste moves suggests not to merge the two histories of articles that were running in parallel like these two were because it will confuse the edit history. If one was created then deleted and another subsequently created then you could hist merge the two because the edits would flow in order. But since these two have edits that would be intermixed. It would make the history confusing to read. -DJSasso (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - it is not a "cut-and-paste" move so How to fix cut-and-paste moves does not apply. Dolovis (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Cutting and pasting an entire article to a new location is a cut and paste move, which is what you did when you copied the entire article from the new location and pasted to the old location. However, the reason this link is applicable is because he was talking about WP:HISTMERGE which redirects to the same page I linked. -DJSasso (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter that the history is "confusing to read". The purpose of history is attribution (to comply with licenses), so it merely needs to exist. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Can certainly go that route if thats what people feel is appropriate, was just pointing out that it was discouraged to do so in our help files. But in saying that, the history exists in its current state as well in an easier to read and follow format. Cecil Blanchford has the history that belongs to it. and Cecil Blachford has the history that belongs to it. Since no information was actually merged between the two and all that happened was that #REDIRECTCecil Blachford replaced the stub I don't really know that merging the two is necessary from a license side of things. So making the edit history hard to follow would be a poor side effect with no real benefit. -DJSasso (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The first created article, with the greater number of user edits, should be the article that is redirected to. To do otherwise obscures, and effectively removes, the edit history and attributions. Why is DJSasso so concerned for the edit history that has only 4 edits? The creator of that article should have first searched to ensure he was not creating a duplicate. He didn't do that, so now, the Admin DJSasso has been asked to fix it. I am just asking that he do it in the proper way to best preserve the edits history. If it is not to merge the edit histories, then, if one's must be obscured, it should be the newer article with the lesser edits. It is not only policy, it is common sense. Dolovis (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither need to be obscured, that is the point. Both are clearly visible the way I have done it. This is the way we have always handled duplicate articles. There is no policy as you indicate that would support your position. In fact as I have linked to above, it actually discourages what you are suggesting. I want to see both edit histories preserved. Your solution is to erase one for no good reason. I am not sure what you have invested in trying to delete a users contributions when as it stands the edit histories of both articles are preserved. -DJSasso (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have nothing invested in this. It is a relatively minor issue, but the way you redirected the original article just seems wrong to me. I have asked for a mediator to step in because you have dug in your heels, and seem to be blowing this way out of proportion. Dolovis (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Dude, you are the one who brought it to mediation. That is blowing it out of proportion. We could have easily settled it by talking it out on your talk page but you insisted on coming here. In my view the only reason you are against what I did is because I did it. No matter what position I take on anything you are always the opposite. So frankly it seems like this is a WP:POINT situation to me. -DJSasso (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Dolovis, you are no less dug in. Indeed, you could have handled this much simpler by simply asking an uninvolved admin to provide advice.  Frankly, my impression is that you are making this personal. Resolute 22:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be nothing wrong done, and I'm not sure why Dolovis is making such a big deal out of a non-issue. Is it really a concern of maintaining attribution for a handful of useful edits? The article is correct now, so drop it.  Grsz 11 20:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's get this mediation back on track
I brought this issue to mediation for the precise purpose of avoiding the type of discussion. I am not accusing DJ of doing anything wrong. I just want to get the merge and redirect process right. By taking this to mediation I was simply asking for an uninvolved admin to provide advice. There is nothing personal in this. I specifically asked to for a non-hockey project admin to provide such advice so that the personalities of the hockey project would not be involved. By canvasing for input from the Hockey Project, DJ has turned this into exactly the type of open forum discussion that I was hoping to avoid. Simple advice from an uninvolved admin is all that I have ever asked for. Can we please have a mediator?Dolovis (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If all you wanted was advice from a 3rd admin you could have gone and asked any admin and this could have been settled on your talk page. Instead you took it to one of the highest forms of dispute resolution in what looks like an attempt to embarrass. This discussion involves a hockey article, as such hockey editors should be notified. It was not a canvass, as it was neutrally worded. The reason you wanted to avoid them knowing was that you keep seeming to end up on the opposite side of consensus. Anyone not involved in the initial interaction is considered uninvolved. Since no one was involved in the original action except you and me anyone can choose to give opinions. -DJSasso (talk) 02:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to mediate. Nothing was done that needs mediating. DJ redirected a crappy, misspelled article with minimal constructive edits to a better, correctly-spelled version. No need to fret over it really. It's done, and was done perfectly fine.  Grsz 11 03:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that Mediation cabal is informal, I'm not sure if it's really one of the highest levels of dispute resolution. However other options such posting to the talk page for Help:Merging or posting a request on the Editor assistance page would seem more suitable for this question which is strictly procedural, with no content dispute. Isaac Lin (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * On the dispute resolution page its listed as something to try after a number of lesser options. -DJSasso (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Mediation is certainly appropriate when two parties or groups are disagreeing, but in this instance I think it is a one-sided debate that probably isn't worth the hassle. I suggest this be closed per Grsz11. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's fine with me to close it. -DJSasso (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep this mediation open until a mediator has had a chance to respond. I am still seeking the opinion of an independent admin who is not involved in the Hockey Project. Dolovis (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)