Wikipedia talk:Move review/Archive 2014

Wikipedia:Move review#Typical move review decision options

Isn't it redundant the column "RM Closers Decision" and "Article Title Action at RM Close (By RM Closer)"? Content of all the rows are the same.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Clarification/advice

If there's a concern about conflict of interest in a closure, and it hasn't been possible to resolve it with the closer on his talk page, is that an appropriate matter for an MR? I hesitate to go that way, since the instructions say that an MR is not to focus on the person who closed the discussion. Some other process may be more appropriate – but I'm just not sure what that would be. Thanks for any suggestions! ╠╣uw [talk] 11:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Possibly. To be worth a Move Review, it should be egregious, or repeated, or contentious and possibly influenced by the closer's COI. If the close made was not really closeable any other way, then no. Instead, lodge a brief protest after the closed RM and the closer's talk page, and then walk away leaving follow up discussion (if any) to others. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• If it is an NAC that is being objected to, I subscribe to the old view that any NAC may be substituted (or upheld) by any WP:UNINVOLVED admin. However, I don't support badgering of uninvolved admins to take any particular action.

  Regardless, if something needs doing, I recommend waiting several months, and then submitting a fresh RM, with a comprehensively convincing nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks SmokeyJoe – I'll take your advice and ensure the objection is clear, and then just allow for discussion and perhaps a possible relisting in the future. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree totally. Some background: It was a NAC, which I as an uninvolved administrator reviewed and explicitly supported. The move in question is part of a long-standing controversy. Andrewa (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Further background: the NAC was performed by someone with a stake in the controversy. Omnedon (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Depending on what you mean by having a stake in the controversy, yes, they had certainly participated in other discussions on the matter, but not in this one. The only possible problem I see with someone involved in related discussions performing such a close is if in doing so they breached WP:POINT, and that would be a very valid concern, but in my opinion there's no suggestion that it's a problem here.

The close was valid. The RM was in the backlog and there was no point relisting it. Had it been reopened as ╠╣uw requested, it would just have meant another party closing it in the same way. ╠╣uw and Omnedon (two strong supporters of the move) need to accept that and move on.

On reviewing the move close, I opened a new section for further discussion [1]. That's the place to pursue this if it needs such. Andrewa (talk) 06:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Andrewa. I appreciate your feedback. Hot Stop talk-contribs 13:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Omnedon: Quite so. WP:RMCI sensibly directs that closures avoid conflict of interest, or even its appearance, since (as here) it can stir concern and debate. That said, though, I think SmokeyJoe's suggestion is helpful and is how I'm proceeding: simply making it clear that the closure is protested and allowing it to stand for now, with a possible relisting of the move at some point in the future (to hopefully be closed by a disinterested party). ╠╣uw [talk] 18:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Again I think I need to point out that the only concern and debate at the closure is from two editors who supported the move. There was no prospect of consensus to move.

I (then as an uninvolved admin) reviewed the move closure and explicitly supported it [2]. You replied to this [3] with the edit summary Highly questionable closure. You then subsequently [4] raised the matter on the talk page of the closer.

At the time I did not consider this at all inappropriate, although in hindsight I now have some problems with it. But it should have ended there when your request to reopen the move was declined.

As it has not, I'm beginning to wonder whether the current Moratorium on WP:USPLACE change discussions is effective. We seem to have just shifted the discussion away from changes to the guideline to interpretation of it as it stands, which was not the idea at all, surely?

Then again, the moratorium has not been effective at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) in any case. And the same two editors are prominent in the oontinuing discussions there. Andrewa (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, the moratorium discussion was just closed a few days ago, and there are currently no "continuing discussions" on WP:USPLACE. Omnedon (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

True. I didn't notice how recent the closure there was. It's a tangled tale.

But the point remains, you two really should give this a break. Andrewa (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, you are the one that is keeping this going with your running commentary. Omnedon (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not a running commentary in any sense. But one of the plusses of Wikipedia is that very little is secret, as ╠╣uw and you have demonstrated in alleging COI based on an editor's participation in a related discussion two years ago. This cuts both ways; This discussion itself may well be cited, in another two years perhaps. It will be very helpful to that future discussion if your opposition to the close is seen in the context of your support of the move. Andrewa (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The point is that you are the one that insists on continuing to talk about this. There was a clear COI in the closure, and it was brought up for discussion. Period. Omnedon (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Ummm, it does take two to tango, and I guess we all like to have the last word. I've said what I think if those COI claims, but as they're now in context, it doesn't hurt to repeat them again (and again) I guess. Andrewa (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Andrewa: No, I'm afraid that's also incorrect: the concern about the appearance of COI came from involvement in multiple RfCs, including last year's (not simply a single discussion two years ago, as you wrongly state above). You also omit my support for an impartial close in either direction.[5] To have to keep making such corrections only prolongs a matter that I think we all agree should be closed... so I politely suggest we leave it there. Thanks, ╠╣uw [talk] 12:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to politely... leave it there when in the same post you make what I regard as false accusations. I will accept that you believe them to be true; If you will also accept my assertion that I believe they are not, then we can leave any who are interested to dredge through the history and decide. Andrewa (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, Huw provided links in this discussion which you opened. No dredging required. Omnedon (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, I will leave it to any others interested to evaluate the merits of this claim. Andrewa (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

But you complained that Huw was not telling the truth -- making false accusations. Yet you will not examine the clear evidence that he presented? Omnedon (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I have already examined this evidence.

And I was certainly not complaining that Huw was not telling the truth. I did not accuse him of lying, but rather of being mistaken. I must have phrased it very badly for you to take it in this way, and I thought I had been careful on that very point. Ah well! Your reading of it is an escalation, in my opinion, and unhelpful. Andrewa (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Andrewa: Clearly we do see things quite differently... and I agree it seems best to just leave it at that and move on. Thread adjourned. ╠╣uw [talk] 16:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

De facto time limit?

How long after a WP:Requested move discussion has concluded should it be effectively too late to use WP:Move review to re-examine that, rather than launching a new RM discussion? Weeks? Months? Years? Would it matter if the closer was a non-admin?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd say anything roughly over a few weeks to a month would probably be towards the late side, not counting the time taken to ask the original closer to explain etc. If it's been long enough ( or if the move closed as non-consensus, and wasn't asked a few times already ) an new RM is probably better. The other thing to remember is that move reviews are more for questions on if the close was done properly, so if there are new or different things to be considered, a move review is not the right place. PaleAqua (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'd say six months. Six months is sometimes mentioned as a minimum time between RMs. If it is too soon to repeat an RM, it is not too late to complain about the last close. There'll be lots of exceptions. And more importantly, a MR must be a review of the close, maybe of the process, but not of the facts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• I would suggest something shorter than that. The time limit for a move review serves a somewhat different purpose than the minimum time between RMs. If the RM closure is faulty, this should be apparent relatively quickly, and there is no purpose in delaying more than a few weeks in seeking review. It may take some time for an editor to put together a complete case of why the closure was wrong, but I wouldn't allow anything over a month. I would make specific exceptions for shenanigans discovered later (i.e. the closer having engaged in sub rosa discussions with some of the participants, or having a stake in the outcome, or a significant number of participants having been sockpuppets). Cheers! bd2412 T 13:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• True, though for the later cases other venues might be more appropriate, since something serious enough for those types of reconsiderations probably involve broader issues. PaleAqua (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Ideally, a review will be timely, but not knee-jerk. However, we should not have a time rule. If a reasonable MR nomination were procedurally, summarily, rejected, due to exceeding a months long time limit, that would be a poor NOTBURUROCRACY event. Especially if a fresh RM were still nominally too soon. A faulty RM 'should' be apparent relatively quickly, but Wikipedians are part time volunteers. We're allowed to take breaks, get involved in other areas, etc. the robustness of this process depends on it being an easy and welcoming process to initiate. I would much prefer to trust the reviewer than to trust rulesy gatekeeper. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'd say a month makes sense, but that would be a soft limit. It really depends on the case in question. Do you have a specific RM in mind? Calidum 01:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that it's about process, not the rationales; that's why I'm here There were a number of bird-related RMs that had conclusions written (including by very astute admins whose judgement I normally trust a lot) that were based on incorrect assessment of policy (e.g. that the IOC naming called for at WP:BIRDS#NAMING was actually a guideline (it actually conflicts with several of them), that IOC naming is a WP standard for bird names (adopting it would actually be a policy problem in several ways), that the observation at MOS:LIFE that there's an ongoing WP:CONLEVEL dispute about birds somehow constitutes a "birds exception" to MOS (close to the opposite is true - the assertion of such an exception is the very CONLEVEL dispute itself), and others. There are perhaps a dozen articles that I know of (I haven't looked all that deeply) that were moved on such faulty bases, but I think all were over 6 mo. ago, some with non-admin closures. Not to mention a long series of "non-controversial" moves that were listed en masse at WT:BIRDS for speedy moving in groups by admin members of the wikiproject, not even listed at WP:RM's noncontroversial section, but many of which raise the same issues (many do not, and really were routine maintenance, just as most of the zillion RMs about bird articles over the last few years were not controversial). I was hoping to address all of the ones that had questionable closes (along with all the ones moved without discussion for similar reasons) as a single MR discussion, rather than open a big pile of repeat RMs that will mire in long-winded arguments about the rationales for this name or that one, and why IOC should or should not be considered authoritative, blah blah blah. The problem is procedural not factual (i.e. there is no question that the names chosen are in fact the IOC names).

NB: This has nothing at all to do with the "bird capitalization" dispute-that-would-not-die; this is about renames that violate WP:COMMONNAME and other policies in ways just subtle enough that the admin closers didn't catch them, mainly because that WP:PROJPAGE at WP:BIRDS#NAMING was being misrepresented (probably in good, just mistaken, faith), as were its relationships to actual policies and guidelines.

Anyway, they're all definitely over a month old, and some past the year mark at this point. They're mostly obscure bird species articles that no one watchlists or engages in talk page discussions about, except birders. When participants in the birds wikiproject say repeatedly that IOC is an international standard used throughout ornithology, is the standard that bird articles use by consensus on WP, and that this doesn't conflict with WP:AT, WP:MOS or any other policies and guidelines, people just tend not to question this, per WP:AGF, and simply move on. But none of those claims are accurate. This is a really good example of why "If the RM closure is faulty, this should be apparent relatively quickly" is not always a safe assumption. The more obscure the topic (e.g. a bird species from an island no one even lives on, or a barely notable snooker player from Monaco, or whatever) the less likely anyone will be to care enough to participate, much less to carefully analyze the results, unless there's some clear POV-pushing going on that attracts attention to the case.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Even if they are not related directly to "Bird Capitalization" I'd still suggest waiting till the RfC closes and then a little extra time to give stuff has a chance to settle down. Then if some of them are in the year plus range, then new RMs would clearly be the better choice. If the closes were of good faith and arguments or reasoning flawed.... I don't know what a MR could really do at given the staleness. PaleAqua (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for instructions change on notification of prior participants

Based on the discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 April over List of black Academy Award winners and nominees, I would like to propose the following addition to the rules at Wikipedia:Move review#Steps to list a new review request:

"You are not required to individually notify participants in the prior move discussion of the move review. However, if you individually notify any of them, you must individually notify all of them by posting a message about the move review on each participant's respective user talk page."

This addition is to ensure that a move review proponent does not individually notify the participants on only one side. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Might be worth noting that step 1 strongly recommends discussion with the closer. If the discussion is limited with the closer and the talk page containing the RM I do not think that extra notification is required. I also worry that notifications will lead to bulk rearguing of moves instead of evaluating the close. PaleAqua (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at the latest MR for example, which was bulk notified to the particapents. PaleAqua (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I would like this to be solved by software, so that a new request for a page move automatically notifies all previous MR discussion participants. bd2412 T 19:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose auto-notification of every RM participant of a unilateral MR nomination. Spam. MR discussions concern a different question, and should not be rehashes of the RM. Many MR nominations are weak or unworthy and don't stand a snowballs chance. Maybe if triggered by a seconded nomination, auto notification might be a good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI: New month preloader

I've tweaked the new month preloader based on User:Red Slash's edits of the next couple of months. PaleAqua (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Lack of respect for a close

This unilateral revert by a heavily involved edito of a proper (admin's) close is, to me, below a line of acceptability. This calls for some level of admonishment of Victor falk (talk · contribs), and the reversion should not be allowed to stand. To allow involved editors to unilaterally revert good admin closes, with zero discussion with the closer, and no particularly good reason, is to let the RM process take a step backwards towards chaos. Can we agree to this here, or is some other forum, or even a MR, required? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I strongly concur and have closed the RM based on @Jenks24 previous close. Closes should not be reverted without prior consultation with the closer.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Headings or edit notice on monthly logs

Currently move review notices link to the log page instead of the main move review page. This means that editors may end up directed to move reviews might not see the general comments on what move review is etc. Considering the ease of comments drifting into rehashing etc, should we either add an include only header on the currently active month(s) or consider adding a edit notice to all Move review/log sub pages with similar information. PaleAqua (talk) 08:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Monthly logs

I can understand why we started using them, it works well at DRV, but I think there must be a better way here. The main problem I think is that lately MRVs seem to be pretty poorly attended, especially so people who were uninvolved in the RM in question, and that makes the discussion poorer as while as making them more difficult to close. My suggestion would somehow be having each MRV listed on the actual Wikipedia:Move review page, rather than subpages, so that anyone who has watchlisted MRV can see when a new MRV has been added. Once the discussion has been concluded they can still be archived off into their monthly archives. Obviously I'm no tech whizz, so I'm open to other suggestions about how people who watchlist this page can be aware of new MRVs, but I think my suggestion is feasible. Thoughts? Jenks24 (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The way I currently watch is be preemptively adding the monthly pages to the my watch list, see Wikipedia talk:Move review/Archive 2013#Conditions of this process. I've been trying to be a disinterested MRV watcher myself as it is mostly the involved as you say that take part, though I've been a bit busy lately. PaleAqua (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Add the following to your raw watchlist to watch the next few years. You can just paste them in even if you already are watching some of them, and it will adds only the ones that you don't have. PaleAqua (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Log files through 2017

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 August Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 September Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 October Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 November Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 December Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 January Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 February Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 March Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 April Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 May Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 June Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 July Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 August Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 September Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 October Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 November Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 December Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 January Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 February Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 March Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 April Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 May Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 June Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 July Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 August Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 September Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 October Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 November Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 December Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 January Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 February Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 March Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 April Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 May Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 June Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 July Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 August Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 September Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 October Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 November Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 December

Thanks, I've added them. But I think this is probably not an ideal approach and the number of people who have done this is probably only a fraction of those who watch MRV. Would it not be better to have individual pages for each MRV that get transcluded to the main MRV page, similar to RfA? Jenks24 (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah it's just a stop gap solution, and it's a common concern as shown by the discussion I linked. I think individual pages might be overkill, but would be a way to see the additions. Including directly in the page, and transferring to the logs after as per your original suggestion seems like it would be the easiest, the approx 2 discussions a month is relatively simple to handle that way. Might need to be revisited though if that increases. Another options is to just have a current page, which is renamed at the end of the month to the monthly log page and then reloaded with the new month. i.e. Wikipedia:Move review/Log/current month. But I think directly including in the review page seems like the best for now. PaleAqua (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• I continue to think that structuring reviews within explicit logs is perverse. The MfD system works best. One page per discussion. The page is linked and unlinked at nomination and close. Watchers of WP:MFD see every nomination once. Linking to the discussion is trivial. Log pages can track discussion pages, with the log pages faciliting access to old discussion, rather than the process serving the log system. The workaround of adding years of future log pages to your watchlist works, but is offensive to the notion of minimising barriers to newcomers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Given the above discussion how about trying to make the switch in 2015 January? We could probably do manual moving of discussions to logs for now. We already clean up the headers when archiving. Wouldn't be that much different in work load, at least until a nicer system is in place. PaleAqua (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I long for this venue to be popular, but this isn't popular as we hoped for. I think we should split into four quarters, not months. --George Ho (talk) 06:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)