Wikipedia talk:Requested moves

Reversing unilateral moves

This seems to happen from time to time - someone boldly moves an article (sometimes "not realizing" that the title is or has been the subject of discussion), and then tampers with the resulting redirect (with the "accidental" effect that it's impossible for other editors, if not admins, to revert the bold move). To prevent anarchy, and to avoid giving admins (or just the consensus-immune) more power than ordinary editors, can we ensure that anyone is effectively able to perform the "R" step of BRD in this situation - by allowing requests to undo such unilateral moves to be listed as "uncontroversial"? --Kotniski (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

If the move is clearly inappropriate or if it has just been discussed at RM, using {{db-move}} on the redirect should be fine. If it's a more contentious matter it may be best to start a move discussion and only move the page back if there's no consensus for the new name. Jafeluv (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

But that kind of rewards people for moving pages without discussion (particularly seeing how long contentious move discussions stay open these days). Of course these cases should be discussed, but the process should somehow ensure that while they're being discussed, the status quo is put back without fuss to how it was (both to avoid encouraging unilateral action, prevent ill-feeling, and make interpretation of the discussion easier).--Kotniski (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer not having to move the article back and forth more than necessary, although I see your point about "rewarding" the unilateral action. It all depends on the situation. If the requests involves a lot of pages it's certainly preferable to discuss first and revert only if necessary. In some cases it will become hard to decide what to do in a no-consensus stalemate (see Talk:The Gambia for a prime example), but I think it's better than moving pages back and forth and then back again. Jafeluv (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel strongly that we should not reverse unilateral moves. It adds moves to the history without any content-based reason. I'm not worried about "rewarding" anything, because we don't function on reward-and-punishment; we're single-minded about providing a quality encyclopedia.

I would note that moves are not like deletions, in the sense that "no consensus" means "no move". In the case of titling, the title has got to be something, and we try to find the best possible title. There is no reason that this should require undoing bold moves. If people are upset about a bold move, that's all the more reason for them to contribute to the discussion in a constructive manner.

Lots of people seem to work with the assumption that bold moves should be reverted as a prerequisite to having discussion. This is a lawyerly impulse that we should discourage in the strongest possible terms. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Ideally - if all Wikipedians were saints - I'd agree with that point of view, but I think it's wrong in practice - firstly, no consensus does mean no move (that's what happens in practice, and if you're concerned about stability and reducing needless moves, that's undoubtedly how it should stay); secondly, Wikipedia is created by humans who will (some of them, anyway) try to "get their way" by whatever means. Bold moves, like bold anything else, should be easily and uncontroversially reversible by anyone, not just admins. What you're saying is effectively that "BRD" should be replaced by "BD", which would certainly be good for a community of saints, but would cause obvious problems in this community of less perfect souls in which we actually function.--Kotniski (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope. It needn't cause problems. Occasions such as these are opportunities to educate Wikipedians about our culture. BD is better than BRD, not just in theory, but in practice. My experience on Wikipedia in many forms of disputes testifies to the truth of this. I follow 0RR, and it works very well for me.

In my experience closing moves, "no consensus" does not always mean no move. There's not always a consensus for any particular choice, but one is determined to be "best" in some way, and we move there.

People trying to "get their way" can be dealt with in the usual manner. I see no argument for purely procedural reversal of unilateral moves. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not proposing "purely procedural" reversal, but if someone has a material objection to the move (I mean they should at least be able to give a potentially valid reason as to why they object, not just object for the sake of it) then it shouldn't matter whether they're an admin or whether the other editor has spiked the redirect; they should be able, without any fuss or argument, to reverse the bold move and have the matter discussed. BRD is our culture, and there are good reasons for all three of its components' being present - including "R".--Kotniski (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no point talking in circles. I disagree, you clearly aren't swayed, and you're not swaying me. Let's let others weigh in.

Regarding moves, I can't agree that BRD is our culture when it's clearly impossible in many scenarios. Our culture regarding unilateral moves is for some people to ask for a reversal of the move prior to discussion, and for others to disagree. That's the culture I've observed. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it depends, but often people revert such moves if they technically can, and I see no reason to deny them that possibility just because someone's edited the redirect (whether for deliberate obstruction or not - we don't have to determine that). All right - anyone else want to weigh in? (Perhaps this discussion should be moved to the village pump - I don't think this page is widely watched.)--Kotniski (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right, that people often assume that such moves are to be reverted, and revert them. It only comes to a discussion when that's impossible. I'm happy with discussing this in any venue. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia culture might not be about reward and punishment, but it is about consequences. And the best way to discourage undesirable behavior is by resolving it as quickly and decisively as possible when it occurs. In the case of unilateral controversial move, that appropriate consequence is reversal of that move. Wikipedia could only improve, without any disadvantages whatsoever, if Kotniski's suggestion is adopted. Support. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with this. I’ve observed a situation a few months ago when a user made undiscussed renames to four different articles within the space of an hour, for the apparent purpose of pushing a point of view. Fortunately in this case it was possible to revert the moves, which someone else did not long afterwards. Renaming can sometimes be a form of POV-pushing, and I think it’s essential that there be a way to revert the moves when that’s the case. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with you. I support Kotniski's proposal, especially if by disabling the redirect an editor replaces consensus by unilateral, irreversible move-warring. I think such unilateral moves, especially if they disable the redirect should be grounds for a stern warning, and, if repeated, a block. Such behaviour fundamentally undermines reasoned discussion by using irreversible move-warring as a WP:BATTLEGROUND method to gain the advantage in a discussion. I am sure if we want to eliminate edit or move warring we can find a better method than by sneakily disabling redirects. It is also a tactic, that if imitated will wreak havoc on naming disputes of any kind because it will lead to disabling of redirects all over Wikipedia and will foster a preventive-first-strike WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality where the first one to strike automatically wins the advantage. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 06:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Kotniski if only because it then means that if a WP:RM then requested, the templates make it clear which direction the move is being requested. Also the people who contribute to the conversation are clear what is the older name (or most recently stable name) as per normal controversial move requests, and when the move request is archived it is in the standard format for later review. -- PBS (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Dr.K. not all secondary edits are malignant. For example some names that have diacritics have added to a non diacritic redirect link "{{R from name without diacritics}}" and there are other templates for capitals. It is difficult to decide in such cases if the additional edit is justified or not. It is simpler in most cases just to remove the history of the redirect to enable an article to be moved to the redirect without trying to decide if the second edit was done for malignant reasons. The is one case where I take a different line, and that is where a person move a page twice in quick succession A to B to C and then alters the redirect of A to C so that it can not be moved back. What of course they should have done is if they made a mistake moved B back to A and then to C. If a person such as been already proven to have disrupted the project by creating page moves that need administrator intervention to fix, then I would assume that such a series of moves were made to prevent a reversal of the move. -- PBS (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification Philip. I can see your point, based on the technical details you provided. In this case I did not ask for action based on the propriety of the second edit to the Attaleiates redirect, so the point is rather moot. But I think the practice of making multiple edits to redirects should be closely monitored because it can be abused by move-warriors. AGFing can take you so far. But if you see a persistent pattern of disabling move reversals through over-edited redirects, then there should come a time to take some action. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Does anything discourage requesting reverts of controversial unilateral moves as being "uncontroversial"? Knowing of such a situation, I tried it[1], and it worked[2]. In this case, however, the person who made the unilateral move initially did comment in the edit summary as follows: "I don't insist on this; if anybody wants to restore it, fine.", so there was good reason to believe it was uncontroversial.

But anyway, this serves to show that it's already possible to use the uncontroversial moves mechanism for reverting controversial unilateral moves, at least in some cases.

Currently, the Uncontroversial Requests section starts with the following statement:

If there has been any past debate about the best title for the page, or if anyone could reasonably disagree with the move, then treat it as controversial.

I propose adding the following sentence:

The reverting of an article that was stable at one title (not moved in over two months, or last moved via RM discussion/decision), and then moved without any discussion within the last 24 hours to a new title, may be considered to be an uncontroversial move and listed accordingly.

--Born2cycle (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Having read the above, I still strongly disagree with the proposal, in any form presented here. Automatically reversing unilateral moves makes us more bureaucratic and officious, and does not improve the encyclopedia. It sends the message that we're somehow rule-bound, and that we care about doing things "by the book". This flies in the face of our fundamental, foundational policy: Ignore all rules. Reverting a move, just because the consensus wasn't clear yet, smacks of some kind of Robert's Rules of Order mentality, and I oppose it from the bottom of my soul.

The proper way to handle these situations is to note in the discussion what happened, and then let people come to consensus about the title. Until that consensus is clear, we shouldn't move it anymore, not even to revert someone else's move. Reverting is edit-warring. The zero-revert rule is an example of Best Practice, and we should exemplify it.

It would be fine to decide that the presumption, if no consensus is determined, is to move back to the original title at the end of the discussion, but I cannot support automatically reverting a move to a title that we may move it right back to a few days later. When that happens, we all lose. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that 0RR is best practice, or that (all) reverting is edit-warring. It may be commendable for certain individuals to abide by 0RR, particularly if they've a tendency to be revert-happy, but if it were a general principle it would mean that no-one could efficiently defend the status quo against what they saw as negative changes (and we all know that there are many negative changes). Nor is this proposal about automatic reversal of unilateral moves, which would certainly be a bad thing, but about allowing people to revert unilateral moves which they disagree with, regardless of factors which ought to be irrelevant - what flags they hold and whether the redirect has been edited in the meantime. Knowing that they can prevent reverts is going to encourage the move warriors to make unilateral moves knowing that they're going to be controversial - if they know they're going to be reverted, they're more likely to make a civilized move request first - and that way we all win. --Kotniski (talk) 10:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Whoever said that move warriors can "prevent reverts" according to what I'm saying? That's not at all part of my thinking. Where are you seeing that? Nobody can "prevent reverts".

Regarding 0RR, it's what I abide by, and I find it best. I can efficiently defend the status quo, when that's called for. Why not try it yourself? If your experience is anything like mine, you'll find it a stronger position than any other. Negative changes can be dealt with in many ways; reverting is best in the case of clear vandalism.

I accept your clarification about "automatic reversal", and I still oppose the proposal. I do not think that we should encourage any type of page move until we know there is sufficient support for it. That includes reversals of moves for which there is no sufficient support.

These "move warriors" will be discouraged just as well if they're reverted at the end of a week. There is no need for the revert of a bad move to happen before the discussion runs its course, and I see no argument here for such haste. Why not let the discussion occur before performing any more moves? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Note that at the moment move discussions tend to take a lot longer than a week to conclude. And if it really is a bad title, the encyclopedia is being harmed in the meantime. Why does an extra move matter so much, if it restores a sense of peace and order? It's one change - much less costly than the potentially large amount of talk page and admin noticeboard squabbling about what someone will perceive as an abuse of procedure.--Kotniski (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

In cases where the new title is so bad that it is "harming the encyclopedia", there are many, many ways to make things happen more quickly. We are not process-bound, and we never will be. Process is one means to an end; many other means exist as well. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

In many cases the unilateral move, even if not blatantly wrong, will not be submitted to WP:RM if it is reverted... because nobody else supports the move, and the initial mover knows this (especially if the reason they made the move is to get in "under the radar" and hope nobody noticed). In those cases by allowing the revert to be treated as an uncontroversial move, we will save the costs of going through WP:RM unnecessarily.

By the way, if we are not governed by rules, then we are governed by whim. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

That last claim is absolutely and fundamentally incorrect. We are governed by consensus (very different from "whim"), we have never been governed by rules, and IAR has always been policy. It was our first policy, and it remains absolutely integral to what we do. Those who say "without rules we have chaos," have been proven wrong over and over and over again. Embrace IAR; you won't be sorry.

If you think we're governed by rules, then WP:5P and WP:IAR need updating. Rules are anathema to Wikipedia.

In reply to the rest of your post, see below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You aren't applying IAR correctly. The spirit of IAR is If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. The bold mover is still free to boldly move. We need to be able to apply the fifth pillar you mention: Your efforts do not need to be perfect; prior versions are saved, so no damage is irreparable. Problem is, when Mr. Bold Mover makes a mistake, we have to put in a two week+ move request to get it fixed. We need a well-defined policy to correct an imperfect bold move. In no way does that violate the policies you quote; by the contrary, it embraces them. --JaGa^talk 06:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. There is no reason that it need be a 2 week + discussion. Even foolish people are clever enough to hasten things more than that. Even if it takes two weeks, a reversal discourages an action. An imperfect bold move will be corrected, under my proposal just as well as under the other one. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen a bold mover "hasten" the closing of a put-it-back RM. Have you? Also, letting a bad move sit unchanged for a couple of weeks does not improve Wikipedia. We need a mechanism to fix mistakes quickly. --JaGa^talk 18:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen RM discussions hastened in appropriate cases. I can't think of actual article names off the top of my head, but I've been messaged on my talk page, for example, about closing a request before it languishes in the backlog for an extended period. I think we're generally sensible enough to see when something needs fixing quickly versus situations that are difficult and require long discussion.

I'm not proposing that bad moves sit for a couple of weeks. I'm proposing that they be dealt with at a common-sense pace, where we get to the point and get the title fixed after determining which name is best. When it takes a couple of weeks to do that, neither title is clearly bad. If one title is clearly bad, it doesn't take two weeks to determine that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 07:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Only you can prevent revert wars. harej 19:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Precisely my point. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support the proposal. I quite often boldly move obscure articles within seconds of coming across them & can't remember offhand any being subsequently moved back by process, but there is certainly a problem here, as the actions of the intermittently-banned French monarchy guy User:LouisPhilippeCharles and others show. I have sometimes asked a regular admin here to reverse such moves without process, which they have kindly done. Otherwise the current set up makes it much too hard to reverse such moves. There might be a case for adding a seperate section to the "uncontroversial" moves, but I think a speedier method than a full RM debate is needed. Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • There are admins, such as myself, who are always willing to look at a situation and reverse a move if it clearly needs it. If it's not abundantly clear that a move needs reversing, then allowing the RM debate to proceed should not be a problem. We are able to handle this situations without any instruction-creep. I see this proposal as bureaucratic instruction-creep. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Now what?

I'd say consensus is achieved in favor of Kotniski's proposal, which is good, because it's already there. This is from the "Uncontroversial" section:

If the page has recently been moved without discussion, then you may revert the move (although this is not necessary) and initiate a discussion of the move on the talk page of the article. (See also: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.) If this reversion requires administrator assistance, it is also eligible to be listed here.

So... should we bold a section to make it more prominent? Or do a rewrite? --JaGa^talk 03:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL, I never noticed that! I broke that part out into its own paragraph and added some bolding[3]. That should make it more conspicuous. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I can't see this helps at all. BTW, here is another current example: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Pmanderson and Byzantine names. Johnbod (talk) 09:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

That's an example of a problem that some editors are raising with the behavior of another editor across many articles. Which particular unilateral move(s) are we talking about that need reversing, and which cannot be reversed without some new rule? -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately there is an ample supply of admins in that area. But note his (PMA's) attitude after several feet of discussion of the issue "Furthermore, RM is always open to those who disagree with me on any move". Thanks a lot! Johnbod (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, there's so much extra stuff going on there that I don't see it as a very helpful example of what we're talking about. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I like the second paragraph with a bolded first line. More prominence is exactly what we needed. --JaGa^talk 23:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Counter-proposal

To clarify: this is my counter-proposal: If someone unilaterally moves a page without consensus, when the move is controversial, then after the completion of the RM discussion, if no other consensus is arrived at, it is reasonable to revert to the previously stable title. The important difference is that I think we should wait for the discussion to run its course, rather than reverting while it's still going on. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. This presupposes that there will be a discussion, which means someone will go through the effort of putting the counter-proposal in WP:RM, and, as Kotniski points out above, that the article will remain at the controversial and possibly problematic title for the duration of the discussion - which can be one or even two months these days. Kotniski's proposal allows for the initial unilateral move to be quickly reverted and for no time and energy unnecessarily lost to discussion in the many cases when neither the initial unilateral mover nor anyone else wants to even bother with a WP:RM proposal (this is likely to be the case since they avoided WP:RM in the first place, perhaps because it's veiled vandalism, or the mover knows the move lacks support was trying to get in under the radar of WP:RM). --Born2cycle (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

What's with the boldface "oppose"? This isn't formal. Let's just converse.

If there isn't an RM discussion, then whoever disagrees with the move can do the following:

1. Post to the talk page, explaining the disagreement.
2. If the unilateral mover replies, then we've got a move discussion in progress. (Remember that going through RM has never been required.)
3. If the unilateral mover does not reply after some suitable interval, then we've got a solid reason to move it back, namely, unopposed reasons given on the talk page.

What's wrong with this model? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The bold oppose is mostly habit; sorry. The problem with (2) is that it creates moot consequences for behavior that is undesirable - controversial/unilateral moving without discussion. A system without significant consequences (like a swift revert, in this case) for undesirable behavior is a system that effectively encourages that behavior. That's Behavior 101. The behavior we want to encourage with respect to merely potentially controversial moves is a discussion, preferably posted at WP:RM.

By the way, I'm bothered by something you wrote above: "It sends the message that we're somehow rule-bound, and that we care about doing things 'by the book'. This flies in the face of our fundamental, foundational policy: Ignore all rules. Reverting a move, just because the consensus wasn't clear yet, smacks of some kind of Robert's Rules of Order mentality, and I oppose it from the bottom of my soul." WP:IAR is not, literally, "ignore all rules" (which would mean there is no point to having any rules, which is clearly not the case at WP). WP:IAR does mean to go ahead and ignore rules when there is a good reason to do so. But that just recognizes that rules are inherently flawed and sometimes contradict each other, especially when they move away from being general principles to being specific and precise. By no means should WP:IAR be interpreted to mean that we don't care about following the rules. We do encourage doing things "by the book", just not to the point of absurdity, or when doing so is contrary to making the encyclopedia better.

But what's most relevant here is that controversial issues are discussed and decided by WP:consensus, and that consensus is then reflected in the rules (policy, guidelines, conventions, and sometimes even essays). Consensus is not what any small group of editors that happen to be involved in one particular discussion decide. That's why we're supposed to give arguments that are based in the rules more weight than mere expressions of opinion are given... it's about which argument reflects the consensus of the overall community best. That's why we're so supposed to publicize proposed moves at WP:RM - to ensure that arguments based on community consensus are likely to be represented in the comments.

Kotniski's proposal is not about following the rules for the sake of following the rules. It's about following the rules to encourage behavior that is consistent with community consensus. It's about following the rules so that behavior that is likely to result in changes contrary to community consensus is discouraged. It's about encouraging respect for, and compliance with, community consensus.

No one should move a page unilaterally if there is any question that it might be against community consensus to move it. The mere challenge of such a move is therefore evidence that it should never have been moved in the first place. We should have a system in place that makes this more clear, not less clear. Kotniski's proposal does the former, this counter-proposal does the latter. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The solution is that it's not a 2 week+ request in cases where it needn't be. It's very easy to hasten things when necessary. This is clear and simple.

You needn't link policy to me; linking the same policy twice is actually insulting; please don't do it. If someone moves a page unilaterally, and it's a bad move, then it will be reversed, under my proposal as well as under the other one. You have not explained what's wrong with the model I've presented. Why is a reversal after a few days less of a deterrent than a swifter one? Nobody has answered this.

I agree 100% that controversial, unilateral moves are a bad idea. I just favor a more patient reversion of this bad idea. What's wrong with more patience?

Reversing a unilateral move after a few days in no way encourages unilateral moves. It ensures that they don't stick; what further deterrent is necessary? If they lose, they lose, no? -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily - some people would have been delighted to have their pet title for an article visible to the world for up to a month or so. I'm not saying that we should automatically reverse such moves, but if the objector presents a reasonable argument as to why the previous title was better (and just saying "it's long-standing" doesn't count) then I think it's reasonable to assume, in the temporary absence of any other indication, that the previous title is the one more likely to be the right title for the encyclopedia to be using (by virtue of it's having remained stable for - well, however long it was). Added to the positive psychological effects of restoring what people feel (rationally or otherwise) to be the "rightful" title according to procedure, I see a clear net benefit in declaring that we will revert unilateral moves immediately (subject to the various conditions that have been proposed).--Kotniski (talk) 10:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

We're actually not very far from agreeing. The only difference between your position and mine, based on what you've just said, is how we understand the words "immediately" and "temporary" that you've used. I think that the "temporary absence of any other indication" should allow for discussion that includes the bold mover. I think that "immediately" should mean that we've at least given a chance for some discussion to occur, and for people to consider whether the new title is clearly wrong or not.

Perhaps it would help to talk about specific cases? We might be advocating nearly the same thing, and seeming to disagree because of the way we phrase it.

What I oppose is this: There's an RM discussion in progress, someone goes ahead and moves the page, and then people say it has to be restored to the previous title as a pre-condition for further discussion. I've seen this happen, and I think it's wrong. If the new title is clearly wrong, then that's clear, and we fix it right away. If the new title is possibly good, then we don't have to move the article back in order to keep talking.

Do you agree? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, we don't have to, but in this situation in particular, there's another good reason for moving it back - it simply confuses people to be discussing a proposal to move a page to what appears to be (because it is) its present title. It's far better (because it's what people are used to) it people can see clearly what the status quo is and what the proposed change is. (That doesn't mean such moves always have to be undone, but if the discussion is attracting a lot of participation and/or controversy, it's probably best that they are.) --Kotniski (talk) 10:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

If confusing people is the objection, that's no objection. All it takes is a clear note in the appropriate section, and then everybody knows what's going on. I see no argument for the proposal. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in the particular context of an ongoing WP:RM discussion I do think a unilateral move is confusing and should usually be reversed. But even for that there can be exceptions. Someone might unilaterally move stable A to controversial B and then, minutes later, in an apparent move to "protect" or hide the move from A, propose a move of B to C. Unlikely? It happened at Carmel-by-the-Sea just the other day. In such a case, I support moving B back to stable A and changing the proposal to be A to C (or A to B).

I agree that even a few days could be problematic and enough to encourage undesirable behavior. And, again, in the current climate, just a few days is unlikely. Look at the backlog. Even ignoring the current backlog, the minimum time before an RM discussion is closed is usually a week.

Speaking of unilateral moves, I normally don't engage in them, but yesterday I noticed someone moved an article to make it consistent with a convention, I noticed three more, and moved them too. One of those three was reverted, and, so, I chose to initiate an RM discussion. If my move could not have been reverted by a non-admin, Kotniski's proposal would have allowed that person to ask for a revert by proxy, and it would have been granted, and rightfully so. I didn't know it was a controversial move, but it turned out to be, and, so, it should not have been moved in the first place. An honest mistake, to be sure, but still, it's better that it be reverted and the burden remain on me to decide whether to make an RM proposal and all that entails (the involvement of many others), rather than shift it to someone else. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I still completely disagree, and I don't think that we're going to convince each other. I would like to see input from more people. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you both have a point, and I suspect that some situations would be better dealt with by one method than the other. Maybe we need to think about the validity of the initial move, and change the policies affecting that move. I would argue that once a page has...

1. Become a size of X
2. Has and age of X
3. Has edits by X number of editors

Then the option of uncontroversial move should not be available (X to be decided!). For new young pages, where there is more likelihood of a change then we allow the uncontroversial moves. An alternative is to have some sort of "Move Review", for example -following a move, an editor posts objection on talk page, places a standard template of other involved editors of that article, and when the opposes get to say 3 (with no fixed 7 day wait), we revert back and do a proper RM. If you wish to "force" me to answer one of the above then I probably veer slightly towards revert first and then RM - I have seen post move RMs where editors have tried to get back to the original name and failed on "no consensus" - i.e a split vote - whereas had the RM been done first then a similar "no consensus" would have resulted - so the original mover has won, and there are several disgruntled editors.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, if closers could be relied upon to recognize these situations and so treat "no consensus" as "move back", then the problem would largely be handled. But that's not the case. For many closers "no consensus" automatically means "no move", period. I believe that's a big reason Kotniski made this proposal; it's certainly a big part of why I support it. I agree with GTBacchus (below) in that RMs are different from AfDs in that the default should not ideally be "do nothing" for RMs like it is for AfDs, but in practice RMs are often treated the same, and I suggest it's too big a cultural change to fix that. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm more optimistic about the possibility of treating "no consensus" move requests differently from "no consensus" AfD's. I've been doing it for years, and I do not tend to run into static. If I'm able to do it scores of times, then what's the argument that it can't be done? -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is a situation which could be dealt with the mechanism that Kotniski proposes: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Page_moves_and_subsequent_abusive_move_protections_by_Ruud_Koot But since we currently don't have that mechanism, an ANI is filed instead. Isn't that overkill? Wouldn't a non-controversial revert be better? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't move-protecting pages after unilaterally moving them a step beyond what we've been talking about here? Without move-protection, that situation need never have gone to AN/I, but that was a case of misuse of admin tools. That's not what we've been talking about. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The vague unspoken MO is that the bigger the change and the more controversial the change, the more one should discuss or get consensus first, and the more justified it is to revert it if done with no discussion or consensus. As far as "big" goes, a move/rename is about as big as it gets for an article, much bigger than an edit. North8000 (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

That may be, but in my experience, I'm more successful getting stuff done if I at least try some minimal discussion before reverting someone. What's the harm in spending a few minutes to ask the person what's up, or to justify the reversion on the talk page? What's the point in insisting that we be able to revert without explanation or discussion? In a clear case, nobody is asking for a full week - at least, I'm not. If it's not a clear case, then there's no harm in waiting a week. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

No harm in discussing at all. North8000 (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Well, in this particular case move-protecting was how non-admins were prevented from being able to revert, but an edit of a new redirect accomplishes the same thing. That's a technical detail and beside the point. The point is the pages were moved, the non-admin who objects can't revert it for technical reasons, and the person who moved them refuses to revert despite discussion...that is the situation we're talking about.

  There is nothing wrong with discussion, but as long as the goal is swift consequences for undesirable behavior in order to discourage that type of behavior, requiring discussion before executing the revert is counter-productive in terms of making reverting of unilateral moves an effective consequence. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree. It's not so hard to revert a move when it's clearly wrong. That's only difficult if you operate on a process-bound mentality. We're not process-bound, and moves that are clearly wrong are easy to fix. For example, you could tug on my sleeve, and I'd just do it. If it's not clearly wrong, then the discussion is a good idea before we go cluttering the article history with extra moves.

If the mover refuses to revert despite discussion... that would come down to individual cases. If they refuse to discuss, then they have an incredibly weak position, and that's easy to overrule. If they do discuss, and they have actual points to make, then it's not clear that the move needs quick reverting. I still haven't seen an example of a case where the proposal made here is necessary or helpful. Until I see one of those, there no chance that I'll support what's proposed here. These examples should be easy to produce, if it's a real problem. Otherwise, I see this as pure bureaucratic instruction-creep. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

A unilateral move without discussion to which someone objects is (a) "clearly wrong", and (b) often not so easy, sometimes impossible, to get reverted, which is the problem Kotniski's proposal is addressing.

But I suspect by "clearly wrong" you mean something other than "unilateral without discussion"; I presume you mean the new location is "clearly wrong" for that article without regard to how it got there. In that case, yeah, if the new location is "clearly wrong" it's not so hard to get the move reverted, but how often does that often?

The problem is that with few exceptions there is no way to objectively determine whether a given title is "right" or "wrong" - we make these determinations by consensus. For example, the underlying issue about the rightness or wrongness of a given title often hinges on whether a topic is the primary use of that title. Yet primary topic is defined to be determined by discussion. Therefore, without discussion, there is no way to determine if a given title in such a case is "clearly wrong". And it's really no different in cases that don't involve primary topic determination.

Now, in the extreme case of Al-Kindi today the move was reverted, but that's mostly because it involved abuse of admin powers (a process issue). Though the edit summary for the revert refers to "English common name" as justification, the title it held temporarily is arguably correct - that is, this title, like new titles in most moves, was not "clearly wrong". Yet the move was "clearly wrong" and it was right to revert it, and the revert would have been just as right even if no admin power abuse was involved here, simply because the original move today was a unilateral move that was potentially controversial and done without discussion... that's why it was "clearly wrong", not because Yaʿqūb ibn Isḥāq al-Kindī as the title of that article is "clearly wrong". Yet it probably would have been difficult to get it reverted had the admin powers not been abused.

So, I have to disagree about it currently not being so hard to revert a move that is "clearly wrong", unless the new title is "clearly wrong", which is very rare. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to be able to demonstrate my point. You're right about what I mean by "clearly wrong", but I don't see how I can argue in the abstract about how easy or hard it is to correct such a situation. This is a question to be settled empirically, and not in the abstract. I do not believe that there is a real problem that Kotniski's proposal is addressing, and I won't believe there is a real problem until I see an unequivocal example of it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose This proposal increases volatility and the probability that the final location becomes a coin toss. If it was unilateral you should start a discussion and point it out (and any admin experienced user may then revert without further ado). If not a discussion should be started as normal. Or just be bold. This will insure that the maximum number of moves end in the right place with the minimum of fuss. Yes, some will succeed in "sneaking" and having their way, but that is not the point^walk victor falk ^talk 03:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • To be clear, are you opposing the original proposal of Kotniski or the counter-proposal of GTBacchus? Regardless, what is your position on the other proposal? Have you read the discussion? --Born2cycle (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I support GTBacchus. Unilateral moves should not be reversed without discussion. ^walk victor falk ^talk 16:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• IMO, if an article title move is under discussion, and it the article is unilaterally moved (by an involved editor) while that discussion is ongoing, then it should be immediately moved back to the original title. While I agree that we are in the encyclopedia writing business rather than in the user 'rewarding' business, the reality is that wikipedia relies on its contributors to create the encyclopedia and these users expect an environment of 'due-process'. To contribute meaningfully and at length to a discussion, and then to have that process hijacked from under you, can be very frustrating and is a sure way to lose committed editors. (Allowing the new title to stand would also encourage more unilateral moves and the resulting, unproductive, noise, but that's a secondary issue.) --rgpk (comment) 12:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I support the original proposal by editor Kotniski. All editors are, and should be, allowed to immediately revert any and all edits made by any other editor. This includes moves. The sole exception to this is when an editor renames a page, then adds a second edit to the Redirect their move creates. That exception should not exist. To continue to argue the contrary strongly appears to be mere unwillingness to give up the "power" that administrators now wield over this exception. (Upon rereading, that sounded a bit harsh.) It really should not matter how many edits are made to a new "redirect from move". All editors should have the power to immediately revert any and all edits made by other editors.  —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  13:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• PS. The only other "fair and just" solution would be to make all moves controversial, i.e., all moves should require at least minimal administrative assistance. I would prefer that the original proposal by Kotniski be implemented.
• PPS. Edit wars should not be any more of a problem than they are with any other edit. The vast majority of such moves as described in the original proposal would likely be BRD situations, and the first mover, after their move is reverted, would probably either initiate a discussion or join an existing one.

Subst'ing RM top and bottom

Technical question this time - is there any reason why the {{RM top}} and {{RM bottom}} templates (used when closing move requests) need to be subst'ed, as is recommended? Couldn't we just transclude them? That would save some typing and keep the resulting wikitext neater.--Kotniski (talk) 10:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, maybe it's because the four tildes don't generate a signature when you transclude them.--Kotniski (talk) 10:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Also because there is no reason for them to remain as templates, whereas it uses fewer resources to substitute them. harej 11:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Is that any more true of these templates than all the other templates that we regularly transclude?--Kotniski (talk) 11:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Lots of the templates that we transclude are the kind we'd like to be able to find via "What links here" from the template itself. For example, we transclude {{stub}} templates so that someone can find all the stubs of a certain category when they want them. There's no pressing need to locate all move requests that have been closed.

We also transclude templates, such as nav-boxes, when we want to be able to update them all at once. Again, there's no reason that every {{RM top}} template has to look like the latest version.

Does that answer your question? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Though if we were to stop substituting these (I don't see any reason to), we could add a {{Z number}} to track usage.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to track usage in any way, I think it would be great to categorize moves of the same general kind, e.g., diacritics, primary topic, place-names, etc. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No consensus

See Talk:Halifax,_West_Yorkshire#Requested_move_2010, as what does "no consensus" mean, when a consensus is clear, but it is still closed "no consensus". 65.94.232.153 (talk) 06:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Read the whole statement: "no consensus to move," which is literally true. In fact, there is a consensus to not move. Though I agree that "no consensus" should be reserved for situations where it's on the fence and there is no consensus to move or keep as-is (thus the status quo is endorsed). harej 06:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I used to use the phrase "no consensus" when closing moves, but I don't anymore. I either close them as "page moved per request", or "page moved per discussion", or "no move per discussion".

Moves are different from deletions, where we need a consensus to delete, and "no consensus" means "keep". That situation is very asymmetric, whereas moves are symmetric: whatever is decided, the article stays on Wikipedia, and it has some title. Therefore, it's about choosing the best one, and sometimes you can't get a consensus for one. We still go with whichever is best. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with one caveat. Sometimes there are good arguments for both alternative titles and, in those cases, we tend to go with the status quo with a 'no consensus to move' closure. --rgpk (comment) 12:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Rosmarie von Trapp

Page was moved from Rosemarie von Trapp, and for some reason is was considered uncontroversial. I have a real problem with this, for the following reasons:

1. The request was made by her purported grand-niece User:Carla.hunter. No proof given but definitely COI/SPA, as her edits are solely to von Trapp articles.
2. No English sources support "Rosmarie" over "Rosemarie".
3. The request was made when the account was only an hour old - her edits consisted of changing Rosemarie's name in all the von Trapp articles, adding a false reference in Johannes von Trapp's article, and citing her personal email in Rosemarie's article as the source for the name change. do you really mean to tell me that her 81-year old great-aunt just now figured out that her name has been spelled wrong in English since the 1930s?

I request that the article be returned to its proper name pending some real proof. I think we are aiding in perpetrating a hoax. MSJapan (talk) 07:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The mover reversed the move, and I understand backlogs happen, but I would like to see a little more care taken with respect to "uncontroversial moves" in the future, because this was anything but for several reasons that would have become apparent with five minutes of research. It also probably should not have been moved a whopping 45 minutes after its addition. I'd rather wait a day and see that proper care is being taken to ascertain validity - edits to other pages were made before the subject page was moved, for example. MSJapan (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Reversing unilateral moves, take 2

Ok, we've got a live example. There's a request to move Security Now back to Security Now!. It was moved on December 23, not quite unilaterally, but by placing a request in our "Uncontroversial moves" section. Everyone agrees that the uncontroversial move was requested and completed in good faith, but now we see that it's not uncontroversial. In the discussion, one editor has requested: "Unless the closer sees consensus to leave the title alone, I request that the closer move the page back to the original title. In other words, please default to move in the absence of consensus."

So, this is a bit like what we were talking about the other week. If there's not a positive consensus for the new title, nor for the old one, should the move be reverted? It wasn't reverted prior to the discussion, as BRD might have it, and that didn't seem to bother anyone. However, the question is what to do now? My take is that, since there's not a clear consensus in either direction, then we should go with the title for which the better arguments have been offered. Any other thoughts? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Standard Mandarin → Standard Chinese

Can someone close, please? It's going on two months, and this is the oldest request in the back log. Two editors have noted that Mandarin and Standard Chinese are equally valid as a name, which is true enough (though only Standard Chinese is unambiguous, as Mandarin is commonly used for Northern Chinese), but they never actually argued for moving to Mandarin instead of Standard Chinese. Regardless, there is not a single cogent argument for keeping the article where it is now, just votes for unstated reasons and false claims that Mandarin isn't the standard language of China. — kwami (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. — kwami (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but doing the move like that, as an involved admin and in such a way so as to avoid it's easy reversal was, IMO, completely wrong. I've started a thread at AN/I asking for an uninvolved admin to close the RM and asking for a review of your actions. Dpmuk (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

So we're back to where we started. I'll wait a couple more days, and if no-one else takes care of it, I'll move it again. — kwami (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That's hardly the attitude that an admin should be taking. I disagree that consensus is obvious so you should not be making this move. Just wait until someone closes it. Dpmuk (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

RM or Movenotice?

I'm somewhat confused about when to use {{move}} and when to use {{movenotice}}. After seeing the size of the backlog here, and not wanting to make it worse, I've been using the movenotice template, and it has been successful. After all, most situations don't need community-wide support, but that's not to say they would be unopposed. The advice on this page seems to indicate that if you think anyone might oppose the move, then list it here.. that doesn't seem like good advice, does it? I think encouraging the use of {{movenotice}} to get feedback first is probably good advice; then if no consensus is reached there, they can bring the issue here.

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding the intended uses of these templates? Mlm42 (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I think {{movenotice}} is an artifact from before RMbot did all that automatically for us. Today it really only needs to be used when RMbot has a glitch (which can happen in multi-moves, especially if there are more than 9 articles to be moved).

I would discourage skipping the RM process for any potentially controversial move. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

But that's the reason there is a backlog - it appears there is an unnecessary burden on the RM process. Consider, for example, the recent move SpaceX Dragon -> Dragon (spacecraft). I was the nominator, and I definitely would have described this as a "potentionally controversial move". As it turned out, there was considerable support for the move on the talk page, and it was recently moved by the admin Malcolmxl5.

If consensus wasn't reached on the talk page, then I would have sent it to RM. Are you saying you would have preferred this move to have gone through the RM process from the beginning - prior to any talk page discussion? I think suggesting talk page discussions prior to sending issues to RM would increase the effectiveness of RM. Mlm42 (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone want to reply to this suggestion? Thanks, Mlm42 (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

In cases where the move would impact on more than one narrowly defined area then I'd definitely want to to see a proper listed move request to allow input from edits outside the immediate subject area and so who are able to weigh the claims of different subjects more neutrally. Likewise anything that is likely to be contentious because it goes against normal convention probably needs wider input. However how do you make such a decision. People closely involved with an article probably shouldn't be making it as they're too involved. At the same time I see no problem with listing it at requested moves as it's exactly these sort of simple moves that are normally closed promptly and without issue. Additionally the current backlog mainly consists of conversations where consensus is difficult to gauge as there appears to be less admins working on these and by your own proposal these would have to be listed here anyway. Therefore, yes, I think any remotely contentious move should be listed here - the only exceptions being those that are contentious enough that they warrant listing someone even more noticeable, e.g. a RfC. Dpmuk (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I see; thanks for the explanation. With the realization that there isn't a backlog anymore, I don't feel bad about using the RM process anyway. :) Mlm42 (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You do know the situation with >9 articles in a multi-move was resolved, yes? harej 06:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I do now, thanks. And THANK YOU for fixing it! --Born2cycle (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• The difference between an unannounced discussion on an article talk page and an RM announced discussion is the participation of users who have a good understanding of general naming polices and guidelines. This is why I think it's important to not skip the RM process for any potentially controversial moves. We don't want only people who are sufficiently interested in a topic to have it on their watch list making these decisions. That said, I do agree the back log is a problem, but I think there are other ways to reduce that. In particular, tightening up the specific naming conventions to make them clearly more consistent with WP:TITLE (and thus each other) would be quite effective at reducing the number of potentially controversial moves proposed. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is an example of a proposal to tighten up the rules with respect to primary topic determination ultimately for the purpose of reducing ambiguity, debate and RM requests to resolve these issues. That is, move questions involving topics which clearly meet primary topic criteria should usually be uncontroversial. This would greatly reduce the backlog. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

RMbot proposals

RMbot talk page notices

Proposal 1:

I suggest that RMbot add talk page notices to all pages of a multimove, since many editors screw up the multimove template, making RMbot place notices on the page where the discussion is taking place, and not place it on one of the other pages. If all pages are equally notified, then none will be left out. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Then you end up with situations where you have the requested move go on, and then the bot posts a message that says "Hey, look up! Stuff's going on up there!" as if you didn't already know that. The directions make it clear that current1 has to be that article, and if it's not clear enough, it should be made clearer. Or maybe I could make the bot a bit more robust, but evidently I haven't figured that out yet. harej 05:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That is already the current situation, since RMbot currently posts notices below an active discussion saying hey look here, there's a discussion going on, right below the discussion in question. If it already does that, then why not actually notify the pages that are left out because someone screwed up the multimove nomination? 65.93.14.196 (talk) 12:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That only happens when people don't know how to follow directions. It says very clearly that current1 and new1 have to do with the article being discussed. harej 16:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That happens alot, since many people cannot follow the instructions. Other people then say that RMbot is failing to post a notice to the other multimove page... So it would be better to be overly notifying than lacking notification. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand where you're getting at. I'll see if I can address the underlying cause instead (so that current1 and new1 can be whatever the hell you want and all relevant pages will get notified). harej 04:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Move notices in talk page notices

Proposal 2:

I suggest that RMbot place a {{movenotice}} banner at the top of the section of the talk page notice that it automatically adds to talk pages for multimoves, for added visibility, and remove it when the corresponding RM section template is removed, to indicate that the discussion indicated by the RMbot notice is no longer active. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The bot used to do that. It was a spectacular failure, so I ended that. The second half — the removal part — technically still runs every half-hour everyday, but for no useful reason. harej 05:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

How so? RMbot only generates one "look here" notice for multimoves per talk page, so adding a {{movenotice}} banner to that message generation doesn't seem problematic, since it just adds one line of text. If it can already remove the movenotice banner how does it blow up? 65.93.14.196 (talk) 12:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember how it happened, but it used to get the bot blocked a lot (for malfunctioning). This was a while ago, and if move notices work without problem, I'll see if I can get this working again as well. harej 05:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Article page notices

Proposal 3:

As requested splits and mergers both use article page templates, I suggest that RMbot place articlepage {{movenotice}}'s as well, this would better inform the community that something is happening, and RM's last much shorter periods than splits or mergers anyways (which seem to stay on article pages for months on end), to gain a better consensus. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you basically proposing that splits and mergers go through WP:RM? harej 05:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I am suggesting that {{movenotice}} appear on article pages, since splits and mergers already do that, why shouldn't RMs? 65.93.14.196 (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe. I'm not sure readers need to be made aware of RM notices since that doesn't affect content the way merges and splits do. Much more important is dealing with the problem (if it isn't already resolved) that the talk page move notices don't make it to watch lists because it's from a bot and bot-generated messages don't trigger watch list updates. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • If I am not mistaken, the bot no longer makes edits to talk pages with its bot tag on (you actually can trigger it on/off on a per-edit basis). harej 05:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• This proposal is a very bad idea. The talk page is where this should go for several reasons (including a decent audit trail in the history of the talk page). Rather than suggesting that RMs are moved to article space, it would be better if merge notices were moved to talk pages as these are inter editor communications and not part of the article's information (Wikipedia:Avoid self-refernce). Far to many maintenance templates get dumped into article space totally ignoring the fact that we have a perfectly good system in the talk page mechanism for editorial issues. The RM templates should remain on the talk page. -- PBS (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I think this might be a good idea. Not all editors visit talk pages of every article they come across; if there's a discussion on the talk page about renaming the article, it seems fair to have a template on the article page letting editors know about it; similar to splits and mergers. It also lets readers know that the title of the article may be "incorrect". The title is part of the article, after all. Mlm42 (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

By that logic one may as well put all headings of an article's talk page at the top of every article. Indeed why stop there and not include all the talk page at the bottom of the article and do away with the talk page completely? I exaggerate to prove a point, self referencing in article should be kept to a minimum particularly inter editor chatter. A few templates such as unreferenced serve a dual purpose of warning the reader and informing the editor, but simple maintaince templates should remain on the talk page. -- PBS (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess I don't see why a "split" tag is more useful to a reader than a renaming tag. A split simply indicates that there is maybe a more appropriate place for this information.. but renaming may indicate that the current title is wrong. But it doesn't really matter to me.. after all, editors are free to add the {{movenotice}} tag if they wish. Mlm42 (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd move any {{split}} tag to the talk page as well, unless it is a useful warning to a reader all such editor communications should be carried out on the talk page. If an editor was to write into article space a sentence such as "I suggest that this page be split into multiple pages accessible from a disambiguation page.", it would be deleted as vandalism possibly with a suggestion in the edit history that such comments belong on the talk page. I fail to see why putting a box around it turns such a comment into valid content for article space and not a suggestion suitable for discussion on the talk page.-- PBS (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal 4

Proposal 4:

Also, add a talk page notice to the target's talk page when the target of a move request (and multimoves) is not a redirect, so people there know someone wants to overwrite the article with another one. If the target is a redirect, then add the notice to the talk page of the article the redirect points to.

If it is not possible/easy to program it to process redirects, then go ahead and add notices to redirect talk pages.

65.93.14.196 (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Presumably the notice would not get sent out either if the target title does not exist. This is a good idea, actually. harej 16:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Not a good idea as it then prevents non admins moving the talk page, something that may be possible before such intervention if the target is only a redirect. Ideally we would like to reduce the need for admins to make the moves and not put in place an system that automatically generate more work for admins. -- PBS (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well... just drop the notification of the redirect talk page then (unless it exists already, and is not a redirect of one edit history, in which case, you'd already need administrator assistance). You could then still have non-admins move a page on top of a redirect. Notification of the target of a redirect should still happen, as it is unaffected by this problem. As for overwriting a target page, that would have to be done by an admin anyways, so notification of that talk page should also not be a problem. 65.93.13.210 (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest

• No user, whether an administrator or otherwise, should ever close a requested move discussion they participated in except if the discussion reaches a unanimous result after a full listing period (seven days), or the nominator wishes to withdraw a proposal (by closing it as withdrawn) about which no one has yet commented, or which is unanimously opposed.

There are users who have strongly held opinions about article names, views which likely prevent them from evaluating move discussions neutrally. I suggest that we add a few words to cover that situation as well. Perhaps something like "...they participated in or about which they cannot act neutrally except if..."   Will Beback  talk  23:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

How would the determination of whether someone "cannot act neutrally" be made? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It's intended to cover editors who, like yourself, have expressed strongly held opinions about page naming. Can you suggest better language?   Will Beback  talk  00:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

This is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

So, let's think this through. If the intent is to "cover editors who ... have expressed strongly held opinions", if you have two editors with the same strongly held opinions about naming, but one is open and honest about expressing his opinions and positions, while the other conceals his opinions as much as he can, the deceptive one is allowed to make RM decisions, but the open and honest one is not? Do we really want to introduce rules that inhibit honest and open expression of opinion, and encourage secrecy and deception? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

To assume one is being secretive & deceptive, is breaching AGF. GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but I'm not talking about anyone in particular not acting in good faith. I'm asking about what kind of behavior in general this proposal (assuming that Will's clarification of the kind of person who "cannot act neutrally" is one who "expresses strong opinions about naming" is followed) would encourage and discourage, especially with respect to expressing one's opinions about naming, and whether that kind of encouraging and discouraging is desirable, or whether it would be an undesirable unintended consequence of the proposal. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a false assumption that everyone is biased. If editors have biases but hide them so well that no one can detect them then they are, in effect, acting neutrally. OTOH, there are those who admit their biases. Those who are explicitly biased about a a general dispute should not be involved in closing discussions related to that dispute. It seems pretty straightforward.   Will Beback  talk  01:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to get a measure of what exactly you mean, would you include yourself in the biased category? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

On WP:ANI, you have made blatant accusations of "bias" against several of us. Unless you can present evidence to back up that claim, don't do it again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

B2c, I'm against changing monarchial bio article titles from Name # of country. Therefore, I don't close such RMs & make subsiquent page moves. GoodDay (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

To answer Born2cycle's question, I would not close any move discussion in the future related to a naming convention about which I'd expressed a strong opinion, nor have I in the past. I think that is already an implicit restriction in this COI section. This proposal just seeks to make that explicit.   Will Beback  talk  02:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it would be absurd for me to close a discussion about a U.S. city or U.S. community move, and of course I would never do that due to my heavy involvement in those areas (unless it was unanimous). There is no need for a rule change for that, if that's your concern.

But my involvement with royalty names has been nil, especially five months ago and earlier. For example, if you search for "born2cycle" in the archives at WT:NCROY, you won't find me. I'm not sure if I ever participated in a royalty related RM discussion prior to when I made that decision about Juan Carlos I. So I suggest you would have to make the criteria pretty restrictive before it would have applied to me in that case. Basically, you would have to exclude anyone who shows an interest in naming conventions. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's see if there's any objections from others and if not I'll add the proposed language.   Will Beback  talk  08:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You mean the "or about which they cannot act neutrally" wording, without clarification? After all this discussion and my pointing out how problematic it is you still want that in there? Whatever. More fuel for the Wikilawyers. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure it can be made better. Do you have a suggestion for improving it? ~~

No, I think it's a fundamentally flawed idea because there is no way you can come up with a rule stated in general terms that would apply to me in the Juan Carlos case without also applying to a lot of other people in a lot of other cases in a way that you don't intend. That is, you're trying to single out one particular person, but since rules have to be written in general terms, you can't. I don't really understand the problem. All WP:RM decisions, especially those closed by non-admins, are subject to review. I don't make very many closes (I'm pretty sure I've closed less than 10 total) and so any close I make is easily reviewed. Anyway, all this stems from a decision made 5 months ago. Since then I've had a few closes reviewed, and one was reversed, and I've been way more conservative ever since (I did close one last week citing WP:SNOW). So people are acting like this is an ongoing issue, when it's not. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is the WP:SNOW close I referred to: Talk:Acetylene#Move.3F. I did close that early (after one day), but it had nothing to do with my alleged bias about naming - unless you think requiring proposals to give reasons for the move is a problem. Wasn't it good to get this off the radar? If there was a legitimate reason for the move (which I later realized might be the case), wouldn't it be better if the proposal was resubmitted with that reason specified? Here are some others I did recently (not cherry picked, these are the last 5, including Acetylene, that I've closed):

• Talk:Progressive_Award_Scheme#Rename
• Talk:Lian_Ross
• Talk:Barrow,_Lancashire (Not unanimous but I moved it because only only oppose was questioned about the reason stated for opposing and never replied).
• Talk:Electronic Road Pricing#Requested move

See any problems there? Would WP be better off if I was not helping with WP:RM backlog in this way? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• I think the initial wording suggested is pretty reasonable. Deb (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Is there anything in my last 5 closes (just listed above) that suggests I'm someone who can't act neutrally in making these decisions? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
    • To be honest, I'm not in favour of non-admins closing move discussions. I see the above wording as a safeguard. However, since you ask, you are the only person I can recall ever having had to argue with on the subject of a closure, and I've had to do it twice. Deb (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the proposed language is specific enough to be meaningful. If the concern is editors who close RMs when they've expressed opinions, why not say that? Something like "...participated in, or which concerns a topic (whether of substance or policy) about which they have expressed an opinion in the last six months except if..." might work. Of course, if the concern is solely Born2cycle, couldn't that be taken up in a different forum? Dohn joe (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose this change because "a requested move discussion they participated in" is objective (something easily measured), while "or about which they cannot act neutrally" is subjective. There are far too many complaints that a closing administrator has to contend with from those on the loosing side of a discussion, without the need to subject an administrator to even more of this. GoodDay you wrote "To assume one is being secretive & deceptive, is breaching AGF" equally to assume that someone who has (strong/mild/any) view on an issue can not act neutrally when they close a debate, is also a breach of Assume Good Faith. -- PBS (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hastily closed RMs followed by hastily moved pages (with no consensus), always causes me to ABF. GoodDay (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Please define "hastily closed". See also the new section below on when to close these discussions. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

An RM closed, with only a tiny number of editors having participated. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

So, without regard to how long ago it was proposed? You mean if it's been a week, only a couple of people responded, and it's closed rather than relisted? As far as I know relisting is totally optionally and so this would be a change. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay, a number of years ago I kept stats on RMs for about a month. The majority of moves involved six people or less. If a week has gone by (it used to be 5 days) and there has been no further opinions expressed then unless the requested move is a breach of policy I would move the page assuming consensus (as presumably it is not a controversial move). If one has proposed and one has opposed then I would take that as no consensus, etc. I do not think it desirable to keep discussions open past seven days unless it is likely that to do so will generate a consensus relativity quickly (Typically to do this some compromise has to have been suggested late on in the discussion and those involved in the discussion have yet had time to respond to it). -- PBS (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Move plus disambiguation move

When you request a move that requires a disambiguation page to be moved as well, should that be posted as a single or multiple page move request? I have seen it done both ways. With the single move request the other move is usually just part of the explanation. –CWenger (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it should probably be listed, since there may be a nonobvious destination for the disambig page, as some rationales indicate such a situation. 65.93.13.210 (talk) 07:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see why one wouldn't use the multi-move in that case. I always do, and that gets RMbot to automatically put a notice on the dab page's talk page. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

When do we close RMs?

Following this discussion at WP:AN, I feel that this question needs an answer as otherwise it's likely to get confusing for all involved here. Current practice seems to be that RMs get closed when they reach the backlog but today an admin closed several that weren't yet in the backlog but were instead in the last day of listing. The closing instructions mention a "normal 7 day listing period" which it would be reasonable to interpret as a full 7 day listing and it would appear that, at least recently, this has been insured by waiting until the moves reach the backlog. I'm not bothered either way but I do think it would be useful if we were consistent hence starting this discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I too have been assuming discussions should be allowed to go until they make it to the backlog, but it appears that by the time they reach the last day, they are over 7 days old and thus ready for closing.

That said, apparently consensus frowns on closing discussions if discussion is still active, even if it's in backlog. A recent closing has been protested partially on the grounds that it was closed too early, even though it had been open eight days prior to closing, because there was a comment made just a few hours prior to closing. See Talk:Ann_Arbor/Archive_3#Requested_move, Talk:Ann_Arbor#Revert_move, and Talk:Ann_Arbor#Previous_closure. But that might just be a sour grapes rationalization applied in just that one case.

I'm all for adding clarity on this point, though I'm not sure about how best to deal with the ongoing discussion factor, though I do think we need make the rules more clear to provide fewer excuses to protest closings, not the other way around. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd argue that an RM should be opened for 14-days. That should be ample time for as many editors as possible to discover it & particpate in it. GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Close 'em if there's a clear established consensus, leave 'em open if not. Simple. -- œ^™ 01:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I like that. Give 'em 7 days and, if there is a clear consensus established, close 'em, otherwise give them up to 7 more days (total of 14), and the close. That is, discussions should not be closed prior to 14 days if there is not consensus established one way or the other. Is that what you mean? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Wether or not that's what he meant, it's an acceptable idea. GoodDay (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I broadly agree with that but I still think we need to decide when 7 days are up and the RM should be closed or relisted. Not because it's particularly confusing from the point of view of making the decision, but because it's likely to be confusing, and possibly cause drama, if we're not consistent. Dpmuk (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Howabout, if there's at least a 2/3 majority for moving, after 7-days from RM's opening, it's ruled consensus to move? GoodDay (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

7th day has been the day of closure for years. "Backlog" does not mean "day eight or more" but "backlog", quite a big clue I'd have thought. ;) Current practice is that we have a huge backlog and many threads don't get closed for weeks or months on end, but since I cleared the backlog we can get back to normal (assuming there are admins who are prepared to do it). Threads which need more than 7 days should be relisted, not left in the backlog. The backlog needs to be empty, otherwise administrators are alerted that the area needs attention other areas don't. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

14-days should be the maximum for an RM. GoodDay (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

That may well have been the practice for years but it's not appeared to have been the practice of admins closing over the last few months - I notice you haven't been very active here in that time. As I say backlog is a clue but equally well it could have just been a bad choice of word especially given what current practice has been (and I'm talking here about the facts that even easy to close ones were generally waiting until they hit the backlog). Closing on the 7th day is fine by me as long as we're consistent. Dpmuk (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if we could get the bot to general different colored headers. So right now we'd have:

January 23, 2011

Submitted today

January 22, 2011

One day old

January 21, 2011

Two days old

January 20, 2011

Three days old

January 19, 2011

Four days old

January 18, 2011

Five days old

January 17, 2011

Six days old

January 16, 2011

Seven days old

Backlog

Eight days old or older

This would make it obvious that anything in the 7th day (Jan 16) is subject to closure. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No complaints. GoodDay (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

How about we just shuffle things into the backlog after 7 days, instead of 8? harej 07:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Nah not correct, we have a computer handy so why not move an entry into the backlog after 168 hours? Vegaswikian (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

By "we," I meant the bot. harej 04:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Invisible backlog

With no backlog, why is the page still tagged as having a backlog? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a really good question. On another note, sweet Jesus there's no backlog! Let's celebrate accordingly. harej 20:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the backlog template ignoring the message to not do that. Let's see if the bot replaces it. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Having had a look at the bot's source code it would appear that the addition of the backloglink parameter was breaking the bot (essentially the following bit of code and it's counterpart won't work as it won't find the exisiting string to replace due to the addition of the new parameter). As I could not really work out the reason for the parameter and it's not documented I've simply removed it for now to see if the bot now updates correctly. Annoyingly we currently have a backlog so it won't work straight away. If we decide we need that parameter then the bot will need updating.

$wprm = str_replace("{{adminbacklog|bot=RM bot}}", "{{adminbacklog|bot=RM bot|disabled=yes}}", $wprm);

Dpmuk (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Well after the last update it's now re-adding the notice (as I'd removed it). Lets see if it removes it as well. Plan is to temporary remove the template from the two in the backlog and see whether it removes the template. Dpmuk (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Test worked - we're back up and running properly. Will make the wording in the hidden comment stronger. Dpmuk (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that was probably my fault for adding the backloglink parameter - I think it serves a purpose, however, as it makes the word backlog link to the actual backlog and not to a category of other backlogs. (I never imagined that the backlog would ever actually disappear - well done to those who made that happen!)--Kotniski (talk) 08:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Well if you do want to re-add it it's a simple change to the bot - just ask harej to change the bot at the same time. Dpmuk (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I closed something like 40 to 50 requests in and around the weekend. Hope we can keep the backlog empty, at least for a while. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that's a good objective. Not that all discussions have to conclude within 7 days, of course, but if someone finds one that's clearly not ready to be closed yet, they can relist it so as not to waste the time of others who may be working through the backlog.--Kotniski (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

User:TopoChecker

People (especially any passing admin) may want to check this AN/I thread about what we do about the RMs started by this banned user. There is some disagreement on one of the RM discussions and I think it could do with a neutral admin taking a look. Dpmuk (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

One suggestion made at ANI was that "if you see a new user with initials TC moving pages or requesting moves like that, it's an obvious sock and should be blocked and reverted on sight."[4] This based on the puppetmaster, Tobias Conradi creating numerous socks with "T" and "C" in the name (TopoCode2009, TakakaCounty, TopoChecker etc) Obviously, any such RM by an editor with such a name should be viewed with suspicion. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Off Broadway ----> Off-Broadway

The most refs both show Off-Broadway with a hyphen:

• The League of Off-Broadway Theatres and Producers.
• Actors Equity
• Playbill
• The Obie Awards
• Internet Off-Broadway Database

-- Ssilvers (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Autism -> Classical autism

Autism → Classical autism — The new title would be more accurate. Isn't Kanner's syndrome and PDD also a form of autism? So's Asperger's Disease. --Nmatavka (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how to handle this

Since I am on a dynamic IP (please don't tell me to create an account) and I am unable to monitor the situation, I am not sure where to take this. I was going to simply post it at WP:C&P as a c&p move, but it seems to be an ongoing hornet's nest. The two pages in question are Newark Pepper (singular) & Newark Peppers (plural). After looking at it, I'm unsure which is correct; that might need to be settled at WP:BASEBALL. Also, there are 2 categories: Category:Newark Pepper (singular) & Category:Newark Peppers (plural). Users are reverting each other and then redirecting and c&p moving. The c&p move definitely needs to be fixed, but I am unsure which way. Could someone who knows what procedure to use to fix this go ahead and stop the madness please. I am unable to keep an eye on this. Rgrds. 64.85.217.144 (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)