Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 March

2014 March

Period 1 element

Period 1 element (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

I nominated 9 pages for a move on the WikiProject Elements talkpage. On the talkpage of the first page of the list, an RM notice with link was placed: Talk:Period_1_element#Requested move. {{requested move}} containing a linked notice was subst'ed and bot-processed. So a difference with MR standard procedure was, that nomination and notification had swapped pages. Then editors posted contributions below the notification too, thereby opening a second thread.

USer:BrownHairedGirl closed the MR with this whole rationale (ref notes like [a] added by DePiep):

The result of the move request was: not moved. This proposal was a procedural disaster,[a] because instead of listing a properly-formatted RM per Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting_multiple_page_moves, the nominator split the discussion over two separate pages.[b] The proposal was rejected on both pages,[c] so the outcome is clear.[d] [1] RM page2nd thread

After the closing I asked the closer to clarify and correct, in two posts. With their second reply, the closer also closed that talkpage discussion. Below I'll describe the issues from the closing ratio, expanded where needed with pointing to the ensuing talkpage talks. From User talk:BrownHairedGirl: DePiep, talk1 BrownHairedGirl, reply1 DePiep, talk2 BrownHairedGirl, reply2+closing.

[a] A hiccup away from the full procedure indeed, but not a disaster. Proposal and notification were simply swapped. No 'formatting' problems seen. Prescribed template {{requested move}} was subst'ed and then processed by the bot, so it listed correctly. A "disaster"? Wikipedia did not break down, and any closer could have easily overseen the situation. Starting a discussion at a project talkpage is not out of order. Now the closer can add a little dramatic wording, but in the light of other statements (more below) this 'disaster' conclusion might be unreasonably strong. It may also have prevented a more appropriate action.

[b] No, it was not the nominator who split the discussion. Someone else started a thread below the notification. This erroneous statement was made while closing, and sustained in subsequent talks. Later the closer may state that "I am not interested in how" [2] but as a fact of error it stands. (Really not interested? For sure they did write it in a small closing reasoning, which proves that it was part of it. And in the replies, BrownHairedGirl shows they still do not see the cause of the split while it is visible at first glance), Then, by seeing it this way the nominator prevented themselves from taking a more appropriate action like procedural correction. I also note that, had the procedure been followed exactly to the letter, the same issue could have arisen (editors contributing below a notification). Anyway, this lack of overview by the closer awarded wrong postings (good faith postings in the wrong place), when writing that a even "deliberate excercise in disruption" would not matter [3]. That is opening the door to gaming the system. Also, in the nomination and near the end of the discussion, I explicitly pointed to procedural options. The closer did not take heed or respond to these suggestions.

[c] "was rejected on both pages" No. The RM page has a 2:1 vote count in favor of Move. When one resorts to !vote counting, at least the counting should be correct. This may be an undecisive detail, but the factual error is there. Afterwards BrownHairedGirl motivated one dismissal in [4]: "That lone supporter chose not to format their view as a !vote, which leads me to attach a little less weight to it". Throwing out an argument because of not formatting as a !vote? By which right? The editor of this dismissed argument responded (feline1: [5]).

Actually, the dismissed argument did contain substance, which cannot be said of a 'me too' rejection post [6]. The 'me too' was kept in all countings without further qualification.

Then BrownHairedGirl wrote "3 out 4 editors who expressed a preference" (to reject) [7]. Here too and again, BrownHairedGirl does not count the nominator. The count is: 3:2 (or 3 out of 5) !voted rejection. So, to maintain that on that page the proposal was "rejected", BrownHairedGirl had to eliminate two contributions including the nomination. This is written in the second talk reply after closing, so it is entrenched not a mistake. !vote counting is explicitly disapproved in WP:RMCI. But when one does count, at least the numbers must be added right.

[d] "so the outcome is clear" - Eh no. Apart from the explicitly wrong voting count proven above, the argumentation also does not support rejection of the proposal. WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS simply says: Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Closer did not put any argument to the test. These points were addressed on the usertalk page, but not convincingly addressed or even clarified. As said, with their second reply BrownHairedGirl declared the talkpage discussion(s) closed [8].

Seeing the failed basic argument reading and counting, I find no solace in BrownHairedGirl's defense that we editors are "complaining to the messenger", and instead should be "learning how to make consensus-forming discussions work properly" [9]. Recently I read this 2nd take, which still did not enlighten me into the reasoning. Nor did I see any spirit of RMCI reflected by the closer.

Concluding. As demonstrated, the statements about the discussion were wrong. Although in itself such an error may be irrelevant, the fact of the errors says that the conclusion was based on wrong reasoning. No stable argument for non-RMCI !vote counting has been brought forward, while arguments present have not been weighed. This merits overturning the close.

That brings us to the procedural issue: once MR is reopened for MRV review, is there a relisting or other procedural correction needed? To be 100% formal, maybe yes. But in my opinion, the content of the discussion already leads to an outcome. That outcome is present on both pages, both separately and taken together.

In short, the proposal has these steps: 1. Scientific name, 2. WP title policy check, 3. Disambiguation check. Re 1: The scientific name is "period 1" &tc. No one in all contested this. Re 2. Good as a title? The three opponents argued from the perception of 'title is not clear to me', which is understandable but not part of title policy at all. Also, no solution was given for the linguistical deviation: 'Team A' is not the same as 'Team A member(s)'. Re 3. Is disambiguation needed (conflicting titles ahead)? No. So from policy reasons, undisputed, the Move is sound. I conclude to Overturn close and move to proposed titles. DePiep (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC) (minor edit DePiep (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC))