Wikipedia:Move review

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

Move review is a process designed to formally discuss and evaluate a contested close of a requested move (RM) discussion to determine if the close was reasonable, or whether it was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines.

Prior to requesting a review, you should attempt to resolve any issues with the closer on their talk page.

While the requested move close is under review, any involved editor is free to revert any undiscussed moves of a nominated page without those actions being considered a violation of Wikipedia:No wheel warring.

What this process is not[edit]

This review process should be focused on the move discussion and the subsequent results of the move discussion, not on the person who closed the discussion. If you have ongoing concerns about a closer, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Move review requests which cast aspersions or otherwise attack other editors may be speedily closed.

Do not request a move review if someone has boldly moved a page and you disagree. Instead, attempt to discuss it with the editor, and if the matter continues to be unresolved, start a formal WP:RM discussion on the article's talk page.

Do not request a move review simply because you disagree with the outcome of a requested move discussion. While the comments in the move discussion may be discussed in order to assess the rough consensus of a close, this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion.

Disagreements with Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions (WP:RMCI), Titling Policy, Manual of Style and Naming Conventions, or Consensus Norms should be raised at the appropriate corresponding talk page.

Instructions[edit]

Initiating move reviews[edit]

Shortcut:

Editors desiring to initiate a move review should follow the steps listed below. In the reason parameter, editors should limit their requests to one or both of the following reasons:

  • [Closer] did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because [explain rationale here] in closing this requested move.
  • [Closer] was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the RM: [identify information here] and the RM should be reopened and relisted.

Editors initiating a Move Review discussion should be familiar with the closing instructions provided in WP:RMCI.

Steps to list a new review request[edit]

 
1.

Before requesting a move review: Please attempt to discuss the matter with the discussion closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, and you decide to request a review of the closure, please note in the review that you did first try discussing the matter with the closer.

2.

Follow this link to this month's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the contested move page, xfd_page with the name of the move discussion page, and reason with the reason why the page move should be reviewed. For example:

Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

{{subst:mrv2
|page=
|rm_page= <!--Not needed if the move discussion is on the talk page of the page-->
|rm_section= <!--Name of the section with the move request.-->
|reason=
}}~~~~
3.

Inform the administrator who moved the page by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:MRVnote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
4.

Leave notice of the move review in the same section as, but outside of and above the closed original move discussion. Use the following template: {{MRVdiscuss|date=2015 August 2}}

5.

Nominations may also attach an {{mrv}} tag to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

6.

If the current month discussions are not already included in the discussion section below. Add the new log page to the top of the discussions section.

{{Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 August}}
7.

The discussion with closer and notices required above are sufficient notification; you are not required to individually notify participants in the prior move discussion of the move review. However, if you individually notify any of them, you must individually notify all of them by posting a message about the move review on each participant's respective user talk page.

 

Commenting in a move review[edit]

In general, commenters should prefix their comments with either Endorse close (endorsing the original close) or Overturn close (opposing the original close) followed by their reasoning. Generally, the rationale should be an analysis of whether the closer properly followed Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, whether it was within administrator discretion and reasonably interpreted consensus in the discussion, while keeping in mind the spirit of Wikipedia policy, precedent and project goal. Commenters should be familiar with WP:RMCI, which sets forth community norms for closers of Requested Move discussions.

If the close is considered premature because of on-going discussion or if significant relevant information was not considered during the discussion, commenters should suggest Relist followed by their rationale.

Commenters should identify whether or not they were involved or uninvolved in the RM discussion under review.

The closer of the Requested Move under discussion should feel free to provide additional rationale as to why they closed the RM in the manner they did and why they believe the close followed the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI.

Remember that Move Review is not an opportunity to rehash, expand upon or first offer your opinion on the proper title of the page in question – move review is not a do-over of the WP:RM discussion but is an opportunity to correct errors in the closing process (in the absence of significant new information). Thus, the action specified should be the editor's analysis of whether the close of the discussion was reasonable or unreasonable based on the debate and applicable policy and guidelines. Providing evidence such as page views, ghits, ngrams, challenging sourcing and naming conventions, etc. to defend a specific title choice is not within the purview of a Move Review. Evidence should be limited to demonstrating that the RM closer did or did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI in closing the Requested Move discussion.

Closing reviews[edit]

A nominated page should remain on Move Review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists to either endorse the close or overturn the close. If that consensus is to Overturn Close, the administrator should take the appropriate actions to revert any title changes resulting from the RM close. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at Wikipedia:Requested moves. If the consensus is to Endorse Close, no further action is required on the article title. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the move review, then in most cases this has the same effect as Endorse Close and no action is required on the article title. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; administrators may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. Move review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest MRV log page, if the closing administrator thinks that a different consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.

Use {{subst:MRV top}} and {{subst:MRV bottom}} to close such discussions.

Typical move review decision options[edit]

The following set of options represent the typical results of a Move Review decision, although complex Requested Move discussions involving multiple title changes may require a combination of these options based on the specific details of the RM and MRV discussions.

MRV Decision RM Closers Decision Article Title Action at RM Close (By RM Closer) Article Title Action at MRV Close (by MRV closer) Status of RM at MRV Close
1. Endorse Close Not Moved Not Moved No Action Required Closed
2. Endorse Close Move to new title Moved to New Title No Action Required Closed
3. Overturn Close Not Moved Not Moved Option 1: (If RM consensus is unclear or significantly divided) Reopen and relist RM
Option 2: (If Consensus to move to a new title is clear) Move title to new title and close RM
Open or Closed as necessary
4. Overturn Close Move to new title Moved to New Title Move title back to pre-RM title, reopen and relist RM if appropriate Closed or Open and relisted as appropriate
5. Relist Not Moved Not Moved Reopen and relist RM Open
6. Relist Move to new title Moved to new title Move title to pre-RM title and reopen and relist RM Open
7. Don't Relist Not moved or moved Not Moved or Moved No Action Required Closed

 

Active discussions[edit]

2015 August[edit]

2015 July[edit]

Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group (closed)[edit]

Assyrian people[edit]

Assyrian people (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM)

The reason for the move was placed on a section of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people#Edit_Request_on_25_June_2015

The reason for the move being rejected despite having many sources backing up the Admin's request for WP:COMMONNAME, the response from the Administrator did not include any comment regarding the sources provided for WP:COMMONNAME. The Admin simply ignored them.

Except focused on the TOPIC of WP:COMMONNAME and looked on sources that were there to question the Pages current WP:DISAMBIG issue of the page title, claiming these did not prove the name Syriac was the WP:COMMONNAME. That was not the intention of THOSE sources.

The page naming criteria for Wikipedia is not just limited to WP:COMMONNAME, but that's all the Admin seemed to be interested in.Sr 76 (talk) 06:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Endorse. Accurate reading of the consensus in what was a messy and POV-fuelled debate. Looking through the talk page history it appears Fut Perf does a lot of administrative work on this article, though I can see no way he would be considered involved. I think in an ideal world he would have left this for another admin to close just to make sure everything looks crystal clear, but we have a shortage of admins willing to close RMs, especially nationalistic and tenditious ones such as this, so I don't think he was wrong to close it rather than have it wallow in the RM backlog for weeks. Jenks24 (talk) 05:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jenks24: He is involved. It is his fault it is POV-fueled debate. It was Fur Perf, that deleted the Syriac people page and had it redirected to the Assyrian people page. He did this with no consensus and offered no prior warning in doing so. He has been trying to hide this ever since. By doing this he grouped together 3 ethnic rivals under the one appellation. The Assyrians are the smallest minority involved and the name Assyrian is the most disputed appellation and yet all the other groups ha been labeled Assyrian beceause of him.

His reading of the consensus is his making also, since all he has done for the past year is block people.

He went out of his way to focus on the argument of WP:COMMONNAME in requesting sources for the page, even in his closing statement WP:COMMANNAMEwas the main point. And yet the 21 references were ignore. Even by you in your RM assessment.

IF WIKIPEDIA KEEPS IGNORING THE ACADEMIC CONSENSUS, YOU WILL ALWAYS HAVE A POV-DRIVEN PAGE. Sr 76 (talk) 08:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Endorse. It is not Wikipedia's fault that the proponents failed to persuade other participants. Becoming emotional makes you less persuasive. If you want to try again, wait a few months, compose a persuasive nomination, address all points of opposition from the previous discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The other participants are politically driven and will not be persuaded because they are Assyrians. It doesn't help when the page's admin keeps blocking everyone new that shows an interest in the page. He is involved and has demonstrated his bias in the past.

When you have admin telling us its not only about the vote WP:WIKINOTVOTE but about the best argument put forward....and......Again no mention of the 21 resources that we use to prove common name. Sr 76 (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Endorse. The close was a perfectly reasonable reading of the discussion. I really can't see any possible result of that more favorable to moving than "no consensus", which of course would have the same practical effect of the page not moving. Past the nominator themself, the support comments looked very much to be based on righting great wrongs and nationalism, and even the nomination had some RGWing in there. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

RGWing is irrelevant, does this mean that wikipedia's admin need to ignore all the references presented? The references dispute the argument put forward by the POV-pusher of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:DISAMBIG. So why did all the votes for WP:COMMONNAME count if the argument doesn't really exist?

Why did the admin stack the votes in favour of not moving the page by blocking any user that wants to contribute to the page gets blocked instantly?

So far as WP:WIKINOTVOTE is concerned. Why did we have administrators (@Moxy and @DeCausa) jumping in on this issue to vote, when they know nothing about this topic? They both sited WP:COMMONNAME as the reason for opposing it, but neither of them bothered to change their votes when the WP:COMMONNAME argument was shut down because with all the references disputing this.....and yet WP:WIKINOTVOTE still counts??? Sr 76 (talk) 05:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Future Perfect's history with this article is entirely as a moderator/mediator/helper, and I see no subject-specific opinion that would make him involved. Having made this contested close, he should not make future closes on the same article, as a matter of appearance, without any suggestion that anything he has done so far is improper. This is probably good for his sanity, and proponents here are somewhat resistant to getting the message. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

How is this not involved?: The original change request that lead to the Syriac People page being removed in the first place by @Fut.Perf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people/Archive_9#Requested_move

The change request did not involve having the "Syriac people" page removed. The change request was collecting votes of support on the basis that the Syriac people and Chaldean people pages "ALREADY EXSIST"

Then @Fut.Perf just went and redirected the Syriac People page 11:37, 15 April 2009 (diff | hist) . . (0)? . . m Syriac people ? (Protected Syriac people: permanent POV-fork magnet ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))) 11:41, 15 April 2009 (diff | hist) . . (0)? . . m Syriac Christians ? (Protected Syriac Christians: POV-fork magnet ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))) no one voted to have the Syriac people page removed, @Fut.Perf just had it redirected to the Assyrian people page anyway.

Even until this day, all the pages now suffer from poor sources because of the ridiculous way these pages have been structured, scroll to the bottom of this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people#Clean_up_of_the_History_Section Sr 76 (talk) 08:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Reopen - in contentious cases, closers should not be even remotely involved if at all possible. If someone tries to move one of the pages an editor really cares about, they should participate in the request, not close it (barring completely non-contentious results). Red Slash 18:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't read the RM as contentious, but as difficult, difficult in that some editors are not appreciating how decisions are made, or that walls of text are unpersuasive, or that introducing WP:SPA !voters in favor is counter-productive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I can understand that the difficulty, but this has been a long running issue with inherent ethnic rivalries between these groups. and the Closer lumped all these people on the same page back in 2009, because he simply didn't know any better. And the page has been a hive of political rivalry and edit warring ever since. These WP:SPA that you are reopening to may be a result of racial taunts on social media claiming "you don't even have a Wikipedia page". Most non POV driven people agree the page is wrong the way that it is, but there is a handful of politically driven users (Assyrians) that contribute nothing to the page, but instantly crawl out of the woodwork to vote against every notion to change the page. They dont want it to change because the page is called "Assyrian people". and that happens to be so offensive to everyone else. Sr 76 (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Archive[edit]

2012
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2013
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2014
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2015
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December


See also[edit]