User talk:InvalidOS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Your use of rollback on Garibaldi Provincial Park[edit]

Hi,I noticed your message on Luidias's talk page. It says:

Hello, I'm InvalidOS. I noticed that in this edit to Garibaldi Provincial Park, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. InvalidOS (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Just to let you know, Luidias did leave a very detailed edit summary in the diff that you linked to. Futhermore, your rollback actually removed a huge amount of well-sourced new content from a new user.[1] Could you please be more careful in the future? Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I will be more careful. Thanks. InvalidOS (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Useboxes categorization[edit]

InvalidOS, thank you for creating the userboxes. I would like to remind you that one of the tasks of WikiProject Userboxes is diffusing large userbox categories. I've already removed Category:Userboxes in some of the userboxes, where another user template category was present. —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. InvalidOS (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Young cats.jpg

You are most welcome

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Non admin closure of contentious move request[edit]

You closed the move request for WTC Cortlandt, but it was contentious and your closing comment appeared to treat the discussion as a vote. WP:RMNAC advises against non-admin closing contentious discussions (and also advises on giving weight to the policy-based !votes) while WP:NOTVOTE covers the misuse of a simple count. Please undo your close and allow an admin to close. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Will do. Sorry. InvalidOS (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for withdrawing that close, while I don't see a problem with NAC of contentious debates, I agree with JHunterJ that closing it as "not moved" because There are 5 support votes and 8 oppose votes when many of the support votes are clearly based on policy (such as WP:PRECISION) while the only major policy I can see on the oppose side is IAR. At minimum a "no consensus" would have been better. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Non admin closure of contentious move review[edit]


The move review you closed based on a vote count, was debating that the move request was closed in error (also based on a vote count), not on WP:RMCI#Determining_consensus (aka. WP:Consensus#Determining_consensus). This claim was not addressed yet in the review, therefore the close was too early, and not in the spirit of WP:RMCI.

Please revert this rushed closure, thank you! Face-smile.svgAron M🍂 (🛄📤)   14:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe that even without a vote count, this would probably be closed the same way, as endorse. I apologize for this, and will edit the close accordingly. InvalidOS (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 Done. I have evaluated the arguments, and the closure still stands. I have provided rationale in the closing comment. InvalidOS (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Not done

"The arguments in favor of overturning the closure are mostly rooted in naming guidelines, which, as stated by Born2cycle, are moot, because those points were never raised at WP:RM." - InvalidOS

"Nope, according to my argument (aka WP:TITLETM) A320neo is fine, because that stylization dominates in reliable source usage" [...] --В²C ☎ 19:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems you understood the exact opposite of what he states. This argument was actually the FIRST in the move review.
Also note that WP:TITLETM is a policy, not a guideline as you suggest. This was stated quite a few times recently on the review.

I wonder, how could you close a review, if recent statements and the very first argument in the Move Request discussion eludes your attention. Making decisions that completely misunderstands or ignores the content of the review, is disruptive to the process. This is the second time you make such action in one day. I kindly ask you to revert this close, and let experienced users continue their discussion, without trying to make a close summary a 3rd time, that has any sign of soundness. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   15:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Please follow the suggestions above and reopen the move review discussion. It was obviously still an ongoing discussion that should not have been closed, yet. And a discussion like that one should be closed by an administrator or an experienced non-admin. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Paine Ellsworthed. put'r there  16:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the most salient point here is that non-admin closure of move reviews is not a thing, at least according to the wording at WP:MRV: After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists... If the administrator finds that there is no consensus.... if the closing administrator thinks... etc. (emphasis mine) Colin M (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Alright, my mistake. Feel free to revert everything I’ve done regarding the closure. I am currently on mobile, and reverting everything on mobile would be a pain. InvalidOS (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 Done and thank you very much, IOS, for graciously allowing your closure to be overturned. We were all once upon a time where you are today, and we've all made mistakes. We try to learn from them and move on. Thanks again! Paine Ellsworthed. put'r there  17:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
You’re welcome. InvalidOS (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
FWIW (and just so you don't feel too bad about this, InvalidOS), note that WP:MRV as it stood when you closed the review[2] stated that an uninvolved experienced editor was allowed to close. This was the result of an undiscussed change made on 17 May but reverted on 11 June. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
So MRV doesn’t allow non-admin closures now? InvalidOS (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Following is the edit summary made by the admin (Amakuru) who reverted the undiscussed edit to Wikipedia:Move review:
("Closing reviews": rv change of text from "administrator" to "experienced editor", made on 17 May and which was not discussed. Non-admins do regularly perform MRV closes where there's no doubt, which is fine per WP:IAR, but as this is the final supreme court in the RM space, controversial closes should always be by an admin)
Wikipedia:Requested moves also recommends that some requested moves be closed only by admins, as well. So the answer to your question is that MRV can be closed by non-admins under two conditions: there is no doubt as to what the outcome should be, and non-admins should indicate their status usually by adding {{subst:nac}} just after their closing statement. Paine Ellsworthed. put'r there  12:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)