Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 March

< 2019 February	Move review archives	2019 April >

2019 March

[edit]

Patrick Moore (consultant) – Closure overturned. The meatpuppetry concerns from the RM show that a head count would differ considerably from consensus. The closure was involved, further compounding the issue of meatpuppetry (not on the closer's part but on the part of some of the discussion contributors. However, the closure was very detailed and I see the closer's potential for detailed analysis of discussions. As long as they refrain from involved closures and ensure that polling is not a substitute for consensus, I'm sure the community would welcome detailed closures from them again. In this instance, the endorsers do note the unquestionable involvement, so I, as an uninvolved page mover, will now examine the discussion and make a separate closure on the talk page. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Closure as move was by an involved user with no previous experience in closing RMs, and the assessment of consensus was complex. Consensus had not been reached but was perhaps achievable with further discussion. Many of the !votes counted by closer were arguably discardable under the closing instructions, reflecting only the !voter's personal opinion of what environmentalist should mean. Disclosed meatpuppetry on one side. A real doozey! I am also involved, on the oppose side (but was considering raising an alternative proposal); Closer is as I said involved on the support side. Andrewa (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse – there was a consensus that the "environmentalist" disambiguator was not correct, but there was no consensus on where to move it to. The closer picked the best suggestion that appeared to conform to NPOV, and suggested that someone would be welcome to make another proposal if a better disambiguator could be found. That seems like a reasonable close to a complex discussion, and a good suggestion on how to move forward. That said, I do share Andrewa's concern about the involved close, but not enough to overturn the result. Bradv🍁 02:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As the closer I think I'm encouraged to comment here. As I said in the discussion and on my talk page, I believe I acted with consensus and conforming to Wikipedia's policies. That nobody else from that discussion has complained in two weeks, and several people expressed support, as detailed in those earlier discussions, implies to me that most agreed with the close. While I would appreciate an uninvolved admin's input or re-closing (and asked Andrewa about the feasibility of that), I think undoing the close (and the move) and re-opening the previous discussion would be the most disruptive move possible at this point. I also want to note that I left the option open for a new, immediate move request to an appropriate title if editors felt the specific one I chose was objectionable, and repeated that several times. If Andrewa wants to raise an alternative proposal, there is nothing preventing that. Safrolic (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, I will probably make a suggestion. But I believe that this should be of the form of an RM from Patrick Moore (environmentalist)... either as an alternative proposal in a reopened RM, or as a fresh RM. Either way, the move needs to be reverted. Andrewa (talk) 06:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Without comment on that process preference, what's your suggestion for the disambiguator going to be, just out of curiosity? You've mentioned you were looking at a couple options before, but you never said what. Safrolic (talk) 07:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is for the future, and may not happen. A future RM from (consultant) obviously has a far smaller chance than one from (environmentalist) (for no good reason IMO, but that is the reality), so if your close is endorsed (and it's not looking good so far) you may well (unintentionally I hope and believe) have succeeded in gaming the system IMO. Andrewa (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Revert the close so that my unnamed alternative will look better in comparison" is not a compelling outcome. I don't think it's fair to characterize my actions (close with the consensus on what there was consensus for and pick something unobjectionable to move the discussion forward so true consensus can be reached) as gaming the system. If your alternative is better, I think it stands a solid chance of passing either way. Safrolic (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, revert the out-of-process close so that the RM will be decided according to established policy and procedures. To argue that this should not happen because of your opinion that it stands a solid chance of passing either way makes no sense to me. But perhaps it does to others. Andrewa (talk) 11:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Endorse~~ as an interim step, welcoming a future RM proposing something better. As an NAC, I call it zealous, but not overzealous. Rough consensus was that the status quo was a problem, and this option was popular as an option. It can’t be called the consensus outcome, but leave it there as an ok title better than the previous. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrewa, you have alleged a serious thing, gaming the system, and "Closer is as I said involved on the support side". Can you explain this to me? I seem to be missing the details and/or the evidence. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can find the relevant info about involvement in the last section on my talk page. I responded to it there. Safrolic (talk) 06:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closer had already !voted before closing, so was involved, and has since made no secret of their view that Moore is not an environmentalist. And that is the key issue here IMO... the !votes in support of the move are of the form I don't think he should be called an environmentalist, citing no policy or evidence. IMO that's not a valid !vote at all. If an uninvolved and experienced hand (admin or not) assesses consensus to move, I'll of course go with that. But I think that's essential, hence the MR. That assessment seems to have happened twice above, so unless you both reconsider, the close will probably stand, and process will have been followed and I will have learned something. Andrewa (talk) 12:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn <uninvolved>, BADNAC and INVOLVED and SUPERVOTE, probably for an admin to reclose. The is at least one substantial complaint, and a “correct close” is not justification for damaging the respect for the process resulting from a gross deviation from process. I think the precise result is OK, but that is for a qualified closer to call. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. <uninvolved> This was an out-of-process, involved-editor closure that is complicated and should be overturned, and then the debate should be assessed properly and closed by an admin or other experienced closer who was not involved in the debate. We won't know how it really should have turned out until it is overturned and done right. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 02:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Public notice of the move review was missed on the original move discussion. I've just added it, backdated. Safrolic (talk) 05:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa and thanks... I think this is the first MR I've ever raised, although I've participated in several. Andrewa (talk) 06:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus. It's an involved close and that alone is reason enough to overturn the move. Restore it to the original title and let someone start a new RM with listing different disambiguators (the middle initial option seemed to be soundly rejected, but lobbyist and businessman both got as much, if not more, traction than consultant). Why a new RM? The discussion is too much of a mess to properly sort out. Calidum 14:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This was the right call. Environmentalist was clearly widely rejected on the talk page. Keep also in mind that both Moore himself and his many Twitter followers have been plaguing this entry since Moore asked them to do so and since Trump tweeted a promotion of Moore's anti-climate science and pro-industry comments. The guy is as much an environmentalist as an ExxonMobil CEO is, folks. Sometimes a duck is a duck. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Two important and subtly related points that I think need to be made in reply, at the risk of TLDR of course.
  - There is no doubt that Moore has himself been involved, using at least three accounts (none of them blocked when I last checked and I do not understand why not), COI, SPA, meatpuppetry as noted, the works, very clumsy. But I'd love to be a fly on the wall in various Greenpeace forums. They're a media organisation... surely they know about Wikipedia too? What do we do about that? Very simple. That's a big reason for looking at all !votes to see whether they address the issues (see wp:closing of course), and also a reason that someone who had never as far as I can see been even involved in any previous move, let alone an RM, should not have been the closer.
  - The other is, this !vote itself... The guy is as much an environmentalist as an ExxonMobil CEO is, folks. That may be true, but this opinion is irrelevant even in the RM (see closing instructions again) and is doubly so in the MR. It's re-arguing the RM (and not even a valid argument). Andrewa (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, I want to clarify something here that was also in your original proposal, and which I think is inaccurately stated. During the RM discussion, there's no evidence that Moore was trying to influence it, or that he was even aware of it. He first appeared to discover something had changed in his article several days later. He tweeted then about the article, influencing his twitter followers to come here and edit an unrelated point. As a result, the page has been semi-protected to avoid meatpuppetry for the next month. But to be clear, the meatpuppetry did not start until after the RM discussion was closed. Now, that being said, trying to spin from Moore demonstrably violating policy to "Greenpeace exists, they might have violated policy too" is ridiculous. But the meatpuppetry that's currently ongoing is the reason I said above that re-opening/re-listing the discussion is the most disruptive thing the reviewers here could do. Any future RM discussion, unlike what there is so far, will be tainted by the disclosed meatpuppetry that you've incorrectly implied this one was. No comment on your other point as you're right that this isn't the place to re-argue the RM. Anyone who reads through the RM, and the discussion between you and I on my talk page, will get a better view anyways. Safrolic (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this, Moore has in fact attempted to influence the page numerous times with numerous accounts, even before this discussion—as early as 2007. Obvious user names include Pmooregreenspirit (talk · contribs), Greenspiritman (talk · contribs), Pmooregreenspirit (talk · contribs), and edits like this one on March 20, where he tries to circumvent the page's current title. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't even attempted to discuss Moore's activities on his various talk pages... I only recently discovered what his accounts were, and was concerned that there might be an outing issue. But there are behavioural issues certainly, and I'm on thin ice discussing them here myself, line call at best, but they do complicate assessment of consensus IMO, which is what this MR is about. Suggest we discuss on one of the relevant user talk pages. Andrewa (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These accounts haven't been used for many years. But I've opened a discussion at User talk:Pmoore2222#Multiple accounts etc. Andrewa (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We should also note that none of the three accounts have replied to the COI notices. So see wp:outing. We need to be careful, not so much to protect Moore in this case, but not to weaken this important policy by neglect. Andrewa (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the behavioural issues started before the RM was even raised, but haven't investigated and someone should. If this specific tweet was after the RM closed, I don't think that makes any difference.

The point about possible Greenpeace involvement (and Moore's as well) is simply that our procedures work well if they are followed, and that following the closing instructions in this instance was an extremely tricky task, and certainly not one for a new hand with no experience whatsoever. That you still don't see that just proves the point IMO. Andrewa (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moore's last edits before the RM were several years ago, and his clumsiness recently implies that if he had been active in the intervening time, there would have been some indications. When I looked a few days ago, I didn't see any evidence of that. Further, assuming, without evidence, that Greenpeace (or Moore) was involved in any of the !votes in the discussion means assuming bad faith of at least one of the editors involved, most of whom have >10,000 edits. I'm not comfortable doing that without evidence any more than I'm comfortable treating users against the move as meatpuppets for Moore. Our policies are pretty clear that, absent other evidence, we should assume good faith, and you're right, our procedures do work if they are followed.

You're also right that closing this discussion was tricky; as my first sentence said in that close, "adding the votes is complicated." It's why I wrote so much; I wanted to be specific about my thought process, so people could see how I arrived at the close I made. But let me get more specific. WP:RMCI says, "Further, any move request that is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it. " WP:NHC says, "Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." WP:POVNAMING and WP:NDESC both talk about the importance of using NPOV titles. WP:BLP also talks in its very first paragraph of adhering to core content policies, first on the list being NPOV. A !vote based on the present disambiguator being POV is fairly strong, and several people made it. User:Bloodofox's original !vote, by no means the strongest example, was "Either this or something else neutral like Patrick Moore (lobbyist) or Patrick Moore (businessman) is fine by me." Others talked about what the definition of an environmentalist is, pointing out that it's a descriptor of a commonly-held set of values, and that it's controversial whether it applies to him. Yes, this was tricky, and it took a while to properly consider the discussion and weigh the merits of the various arguments.

But I don't think (and so far, you and only you have said) that I did it wrongly. Of the 19 people who !voted in the discussion (several of whom have been active in move review in the past), nobody else raised concern over the outcome, and several have made actions affirming it. WP:RMCI says "Some editors do not approve of non-admins closing contentious debates; indeed, elsewhere on Wikipedia, NACs are not recommended, but NACs are not discouraged for requested moves. All closures of requested moves are subject to being taken to review at WP:Move review (WP:MR), but the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is never sufficient reason to reverse a closure. Indeed, many high-profile, controversial move requests have been closed as NACs, taken to WP:MR, and affirmed there." The word "contentious" isn't there by accident, either. I've tried to avoid stating it so bluntly, but I think that you're using process to justify undoing a move that was correctly decided, with consensus, that conformed to Wikipedia's policies, and it feels rather bureaucratic. That doing so would cause cause the article title to at least temporarily no longer conform to NPOV, and potentially provide an opportunity for further meatpuppetry, feels disruptive and counterproductive to the intent of reviewing moves in the first place; "to determine if the close was reasonable, or whether it was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines.". Safrolic (talk) 02:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled by what you mean by wrongly, as there have also been several overturn !votes. Neither of us should be attempting to determine consensus here, either way. There is no doubt that you took a great deal of trouble with the close, and I assume good faith of course. And it's possible that in this case we'll end up appealing to wp:IAR to avoid POV, rather than simply going by sources, but that's for a further discussion. Andrewa (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse <uninvolved> There was little support for environmentalist and a great deal of opposition to the old title. The current title is the best compromise until such time as further discussion produces a third outcome. --23:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- There was much support for a move by a head count certainly. But much (perhaps even all) of that support was IMO based on neither evidence nor policy, and it required an experienced closer to evaluate this. Andrewa (talk) 00:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by MR proposer: Just to summarise in case my many replies are TLDR. IMO this close should be overturned either to reopen or (better, as someone else suggested above) to revert on the understanding that a new RM will be immediately raised. It's made easier by closer's clumsily !voting before closing, but this also underlines their inexperience, as does their failure to see the problem. Moore's involvement was raised by others but is not directly relevant, our closing instructions deal well with POV !votes, and similarly deal with POVs the other way (and most of us have a POV one way or another on this). But it's always a subtle thing deciding which !votes to discard, and this RM more than most needs an experienced hand. Andrewa (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How many times, in how many different ways do I need to respond to your descriptions of the problem before you acknowledge that I have acknowledged it? How specific do I need to get in outlining the process and policy I followed before you describe how that caused the RM to be decided incorrectly (against reasonably-interpreted consensus, against the spirit of Wikipedia policy or project goal, against the intents of RMCI, take your pick), instead of simply asserting that someone more experienced should have done it? (On a side note, please don't tell me again how much trouble you're sure I went to.)Safrolic (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is repetitive, and I admit I don't understand how you can on the one hand claim that you see the problem (here was the first time I think) but on the other hand deny that there is anything to correct. Andrewa (talk) 10:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that. Personally, I think I explained my reasoning fairly well in that diff, as well as one reply below it, here. At that time, your reply to that, and the end of the conversation for several days, was "This still does not even attempt to address the issue that this should not have been closed by a non-admin." This reply did not address either the specific line in RMCI saying that NACs are not discouraged (which I quoted back then, unacknowledged), or any way that the detailed reasoning I gave you of how I weighed the arguments was in error. Since "this review process should be focused on the move discussion and the subsequent results of the move discussion, not on the person who closed the discussion", I'd appreciate it if you could talk about why the close itself was not reasonable. Safrolic (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMO I have done that. Andrewa (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Safrolic: you keep saying the fact that you're not an admin shouldn't be held against you, but the bigger concern is that you closed a discussion you voted in. This is disallowed per Wp:INVOLVED. WP:RMCI reiterates a similar concern: "Any editor who has participated in a move discussion, either in support of the move or in opposition to it, will very likely be seen as a biased judge of that discussion." Calidum 19:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I'm sorry about that. Safrolic (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant advice at Wikipedia:The Last Word. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Hearts (disambiguation) – Closed endorsed B dash (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

JHunterJ closed this RM stating accurately that there was no clear consensus whether to move the hearts disambiguation page to the base name. Contrary to this, he still closed by moving the DAB to base. He then opened a 2nd RM proposing several alternatives, including moving the DAB back where it came from. This close seems like a WP:SUPERVOTE expressing his preference that the DAB be at the base name, despite no consensus shown for that. This move has now created a new "status quo" in relation to the 2nd RM where, if no consensus develops, the DAB will remain at base (defaulting to JHunterJ's preference). The proper handling of this close, per WP:THREEOUTCOMES was to leave the DAB where it was at Hearts (disambiguation) since no consensus developed. This would have allowed other processes, like WP:Redirects for discussion to determine the final fate of the leftover, postmove redirect at Hearts or a 2nd RM to move Hearts (disambiguation) to base (with the proper status quo not being an issue). -- Netoholic @ 18:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it would have been too much to expect Netoholic to present this neutrally after hearing my answers when they asked on my page, but: I partially settled and partially relisted the RM based on the discussion there and Wikipedia policies (which include WP:PRECISION) and guidelines (which include WP:MALPLACED). The other option to the partial relisting was just to move the dab to the base name since there was no consensus on a primary topic (after the previous RM determined that the card game wasn't primary). Which would have resulted in the same arrangement only without my opening the new RM. There was no WP:SUPERVOTE, and actually reading my preference will show that it is for not merging the dabs, and has no preference for whether the primary topic for "hearts" is Heart or nothing (landing on the disambiguation page). -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:RMCI does not require a closer to resolve all leftover concerns like WP:PRECISION or WP:MALPLACED, for good reason. You as the closer have attempted to resolve PRECISION/MALPLACED problems as you see them and initiated a solution based on your preference. These issues, if they exist and need handling, can be done by other processes and other editors. Your job as closer is only to apply the instructions of WP:RMCI and WP:THREEOUTCOMES specifically to the page moves. If that makes something weird for a little while, that's fine. Calling this a "partial relisting" to try to justify implementing your preference is disingenuous and misleading. -- Netoholic @ 19:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Calling this disingenuous and misleading because it doesn't fit your preference is contrary to WP:AGF. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS explicitly counters individual discussions (such as that RM) from contravening policy (such as WP:PRECISION), so I opted to follow policy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:PRECISION or WP:MALPLACED are just procedural, the lack of a primary topic meant the DAB goes at the base name, if you still think the organ is primary you should argue that at the RM, not here. And JHJ clearly didn't implement his preference but rather the setup in accordance with established practices. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please link to any part of WP:RMCI or any other "established practices" that says a RM closer must resolve any of this immediately themselves. I am not here to debate relative merits of any handling, just asking the closer to be consistent and not move a page when he states there was no consensus to move it, which goes against WP:THREEOUTCOMES. -- Netoholic @ 19:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There was clearly no consensus for either the organ, card game or suit to the primary so per WP:THREEOUTCOMES this was the best outcome, redirecting "Hearts" to Hearts (disambiguation) or Hearts (card game) would have violated WP:DABNAME/WP:MALPLACED and WP:PRECISION. And as pointed out at the new RM, RM is a better venue than RFD. Where there is no consensus for multiple topics to be primary the obvious outcome is no primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. <uninvolved> Unusual outcome; however, not the oddest I've seen. See where the nom is coming from and must empathize. Yet, the "partial relisting" new RM seems to help address those concerns. So let's put this to sleep and see what dreams the next REM stage induces. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 20:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: I made the exact same call but edit conflicted. I don't see evidence of a supervote, and post-move cleanup should be discussed within the RMs e.g. support move and convert X to disambiguation. The consensus for the moves was correctly determined, so move review isn't the place. SITH (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The "relisted" portion of this RM has been closed as not moved, which means that the consensus is to keep the base name, "Hearts", as the title of the disambiguation page. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 15:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Sinhalese language – Overturned and relisted: consensus appears to be that the closure as not moved was incorrect and that a relist or no consensus close would have more accurately reflected consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

User:Xain36 did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because all evidence in favour of the move was ignored and the decision was based solely on a single disputed piece of information in closing this requested move discussion. Danielklein (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - it was split, with a !vote count of 2-2, with not enough discussion of the language used in sources. This should either be reopened to allow broader discussion (it wasn't relisted a single time) or, less preferable, changed to no consensus, since a 2-2 split is just as far from consensus in favor as consensus against. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist – this could use more discussion. At best that should have been a "no consensus" close. Bradv🍁 14:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Won't hurt to let this discussion go a bit longer to see what other evidence may unfold. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 07:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn/relist. Per the above but also per the discussion with the closer which strongly suggests this was a super vote. There was no kind of consensus in this discussion and it’s disturbing to seea closer claim otherwise. —В²C ☎ 07:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. WP:BADNAC. The closer is woefully too inexperienced to be closing contested discussions for the community to trust the depth of the skill and judgement. Probably, the discussion was headed for "no consensus", but it couldnot have been called a "consensus to move" and I don't think it can get there now, with this interruption. I think it should be left closed for a couple months after the close of this MRV discussion, before allowing a fresh nomination. The "previous consensus" referenced in the RM nomination was Talk:Sinhalese_language#Requested_move, dated June 2009 was a very weak "consensus". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Resist. Linguistics expert here. This could use some more discussion of course. But regardless of whether the closer was new or not, I agree that Sinhala is a better name, while Sinhalese is somewhat more archaic. Glottolog uses Sinhala, and so does Ethnologue. I've been dealt with language article renaming for years. This article should best be renamed as Sinhala language. However, this needs further discussion on the article talk page in order to prevent edit wars and disagreements. We need mutual community agreement first before moving. — Stevey7788 (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Stevey7788, reminder: your input is appreciated, but MR is not the place to continue the RM discussion - it's to evaluate the closer's reading of the RM discussion. --В²C ☎ 22:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am aware that MR is not the place to go into in-depth discussions about such issues, which is why I've kept it sweet and short. RM has been closed. Will start a new section on the article talk page. I am simply letting Danielklein know my position about this issue and have discussed this further with him on user talk pages. — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Module:Adjacent stations/sandbox – Closed endorsed (closed by non-admin page mover) B dash (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

StraussInTheHouse did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI in closing this requested move discussion. There were more users who supported the move than those who opposed, and based on WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS, what matters is the strength of arguments. Only one argument was given by the opposition which was not elaborated even when asked. Arguments for the move were not addressed either. Ythlev (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. No p&g's used to support or oppose, and while there was a little more support for the move than there was opposition, it doesn't appear that a 3rd relist would change the outcome. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 00:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And maybe because I'm Lua and Module shy, I don't get why we would want to rename the /sandbox and /doc without also renaming the module to Module:Rail? Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 00:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Paine Ellsworth: As a moderately advanced Lua coder, I agree. This request should have been headed Module:Adjacent stations. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I thought. Higher up on the talk page a rename of the basepagename was discussed briefly, and the nom stated that they would request a rename to Module:Rail; however, evidently that never happened. Were I to initiate a requested move of just a /doc and a /sandbox page and not the basepagename, I would expect the request to fail. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 12:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was already stated earlier on the talk page that the new code was going be at Module:Rail, then for each template that was tested to be OK, invoke Module:Rail. If this approach was somehow inappropriate, it should have been brought up. This is a move review, where we review the contents of the closed discussion, not bring up new points. Ythlev (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's true, which makes me wonder why in the three weeks (3 times normal) your RM lasted, no one brought it up. So again I ask, whether it is or isn't allowed, why did you not include the basepagename, Module:Adjacent stations → Module:Rail, in your formal RM??? Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 17:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to explain why I am confused by all this. I don't understand why you would just request to rename the subpages. The main controversy when renaming a module lies in the fact that a redirect cannot be left behind after the move, so every page that is implemented by that module must be changed to reflect the new module name. That's quite a big job with a module that's transcluded to nearly 39,000 pages! Putting that aside for the moment, the fact remains that if a module is renamed, then the subpages are renamed along with it, so there really is no need to request the renaming of the subpages – the important move is of the module itself, isn't it? Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 18:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should mention that it is clear to me that you wanted to restructure Module:Adjacent stations and place the redone code under the Module:Rail pagename, then leave Module:Adjacent stations in place while the new code's implementations are tested. And I suppose you thought that before you do all that, you should do a formal RM on the subpages to "test the editorial waters" so to speak? If that's the case, then I applaud what you did, and I think you have your answer. At this point in time, the status quo should remain in place just as it is. So further informal discussion seems to be needed, and there should be better ways to test the new code than on live transclusions. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 18:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. !votes almost comically alternating each way, considered comments going to reasons for inherent indecision, no comments for 14 days, this could not have been closed any other way. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a related discussion at Module talk:Rail#Module redirect. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 17:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2019 North Korea–United States Hanoi Summit – Closure endorsed per WP:NOTBURO, closer trouted for involved closure, nominator trouted for not discussing it on the closer's talk page. SITH (talk) 11:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC) (closed by non-admin page mover)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

First of all, the RM just lasted for 8 hours, obviously not enough for others to express their opinion. Next, the closer also vote on this RM, possibly violate WP:RMNAC, and (s)he doesn't marked as {{RMnac}} as well. --219.79.126.220 (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remind the closer of the proper way to do NACs, but it is very hard to get excited about a close running at 7-0 that could have been a bold move at the start. Is there any objection of substance? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC). I.e why not treat this as an uncontested uncontroversial bold move? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would you endorse it had all the participants opposed the move and it had been closed as "not moved" after only eight hours? When RMs are opened, they need to stay open for 7 days for a reason, and this close also raises the question of potential COI concerns. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 19:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unanimous agreement means everyone, including the nominator. —SmokeyJoe (talk)

That's a small peripheral concern compared with the fact that the closer was one of those unanimous !votes, which raises COI concerns. There is no way this close should be endorsed, because there is no way of telling if the unanimity would have continued had the RM stayed open for at least the minimum time period. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 20:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as a de facto non-controversial bold move. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it's so "non-controversial", then why are there three editors here at MRV who do not endorse? That's not to construe that they would oppose the page move; however, so far we're pretty split as to whether or not endorsation of the close is appropriate. You have a crystal ball that makes you certain that opposition would not have developed given more time? Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 03:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It bemuses me. There remains not a single substantive objection to the move.

Actually, looking closer, this was a 8-0 unanimous agreement to revert the undiscussed move.

23:46, 24 February 2019 Levalbert (talk | contribs) moved page 2019 North Korea–United States Hanoi Summit to 2019 North Korea–United States Hanoi Summit Viet Nam (move to official name of the summit)

Levalbert (talk · contribs) should be expect to make a post in support of is bold move, but he hasn't.

No, it was not a techincally correct NAC close, but the page should stay at 2019 North Korea–United States Hanoi Summit, and there should be no new RM mandated from MRV given the complete lack of argument for a move. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That editor doesn't comment on talkpages, they just move them:[1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per WP:NOTBURO. The result was obvious and a reasonable application of WP:SNOW; we don't overturn RMs for minor procedural issues. Iffy★Chat -- 14:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No endorsing, though not recommending overturning the close either. There are some anomalies in the close and they should, at the very least, be acknowledged. The closer was clearly involved user, closing the discussion they participated/supported and even more, doing so just after 8 hours for a process that normally runs for 7 days. I don't agree the initial influx of supporters justify the premature close, that it might well dramatically shift the other way round had the discussion been left open longer is not uncommon. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. I agree that this is not a proper closing, and some more inputs should be there if the RM lasted for longer time. 8 hours is really short, and unacceptable for me. --B dash (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. It seems like a reasonable application of WP:SNOW given the circumstances. The nomination also looks non-controversial to me, so it probably didn't need to go through the formal process anyway. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and allow at least the customary 7 days. 8 hours is unacceptable, no discussion with closer is unacceptable, involved editor as closer is unacceptable, whole thing is... you guessed it... unacceptable. Even relisting is not really an option, and endorsement of such a closure that strains the belief system is unconscionable to me. So speedy reopen and give it more time, like 21 times more time, at least! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 22:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsers are correct, so I guess I'm outvoted and outwisdomed. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 00:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Yes, the closure was out of process. But at the end of the day, the former title fails WP:CRITERIA, so I see no need to reopen the discussion per WP:NOTBURO. Calidum 03:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This was the quintessential reverse WP:SNOW situation — the proposal did not have a snowball’s chance in hell of not passing. The call to end the process early was the right one. Why burden RM with discussions about non-controversial proposals? That said, the closer deserves a

whack for closing a discussion in which they were involved. But then the IP who open this MRV deserves one too, for not discussing with the closer first. —В²C ☎ 16:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.