Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Kind regards. For starters, Happy New Year. I wanted to ask if you could reconsider your close at the 2023 Guayana Esequiba crisis article. From what I gather, WP:NPOV was one of the main reasons for deciding on the move; the nominator first argued this at Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute, but this was something hotly debated in its move discussion, and I explained that it is rather a descriptive title in Spanish for The Guianas region and the Essequibo River. Additionally, with three editors against and three editors in favor (without including the nominator), I think it's too close of a margin to determine a consensus. Best wishes and thanks in advance. NoonIcarus (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for reaching out! WP:NPOV was one of the reasons behind the move, but the WP:COMMONNAME argument also played a major role in my decision. Editors made a compelling case that the term Guayana Esequiba was not widely used by English-language sources - on this point, I was particularly swayed by DankJae's Google News results and Unknown Temptation's spot-check of different outlets. Both of these arguments were raised by several participants in the RM, which suggested to me that they had a relatively wide degree of acceptance.

As for the margins: you're correct that the sides were roughly numerically even, but I think a closer look at the arguments indicates a stronger consensus to move the page than the numbers alone would suggest. Andrew Davidson's oppose was built on the assertion that "Essequibo dispute" is the English-language COMMONNAME, so while he was opposed to the proposed title of "Guyana–Venezuela crisis", he nevertheless appeared to support moving away from the Guayana Esequiba title. Meanwhile, GreatLeader1945's argument (that articles on historical crises are titled with a single region name, essentially an appeal to WP:CONSISTENT) didn't strike me as very strong; the examples she cited were all cases where there's an established historiographical COMMONNAME, whereas this article required us to pull together a descriptive title based on more scattered references, so I was skeptical of that argument's applicability. (If we're examining the numbers, I think it's also worth considering CMD's comment, which supported a move away from Guayana Esequiba but was neutral on preferred destination.) Let me know if this answers your questions, or if there's anything else I can clarify. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I was hoping to answer earlier, I'm so sorry about the delay. I understand better your rationale, thank you very much for the explanation. Although I still disagree with it, I think it's reasonable. At any rate, I was still thinking about start a move review and wanted to let you know beforehand, if that was alright. Many thanks in advance. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up! Even if we still do disagree, I'm glad I was able to make my thought process clearer. No objections from my end if you'd like to file an MRV. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your understanding :) I wanted to let you know I have started the move review on Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 February. Best wishes! --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading about the sites yesterday and was curious where to link them or whether I should write up an article myself -- great work! Citing (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is rather late out of the gate and far too late for a close review (which wouldn't amount to anything since the page didn't move anyway), but your close at Talk:Central Maine & Quebec Railway was badly faulty. It is not possible per WP:CONLEVEL policy for some essay from a wikiproject to contradict site-wide policies like WP:COMMONAME and site-wide guidelines like MOS:&. (In fact, the entire reason thr CONLEVEL policy was enacted was specifically to stop wikiprojects from trying to WP:POLICYFORK their own "anti-rules" against site-wide consensus to make magical exception for "their" pet topic. This is not some case of "maybe" or "kinda-sorta", it's exactly what that policy exists to prevent.) Any argument presented by commenters in the direction of obeying an essay over P&G requirements necessarily had to be given no weight because it was contrary to policy and practice. This is not BothSidesAreAlwaysEqualPedia. Non-admin closures are certainly permissible for many things, including RMs that do not require admin (or pagemover) permissions to effectuate, but they have to actually be compliant with policy. Specifically from WP:CLOSE: "closers are expected and required to exercise their judgment to ensure that any decision reached is within compliance of the spirit of Wikipedia policy ... The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments [including] those that flatly contradict established policy .... The closer ... is expected to know policy sufficiently to know what arguments are to be excluded as irrelevant. ... As noted above, arguments that contradict policy are discounted."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention - you're absolutely right. I don't recall what led me to weigh the wikiproject's style guidance so heavily, but looking back on it, I agree that it was a clear error on my part. I'm not sure if there's anything concrete I could do about it at this point (I'd feel a bit dodgy revising a close I made months ago), but I wanted to at least confirm that I've received your message and have no intention of making a similar mistake again. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 January 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Upano Valley sites, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 03:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You got on the Upano Valley sites article super quickly, and I just want to thank you for it! GunnarBonk (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ModernDayTrilobite. Thank you for your work on The Great Bailout. Another editor, Tails Wx, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Great work on this article as whole; especially the critical reception section! This article definitely passes notability guidelines and is in great shape; therefore I've reviewed it. Happy editing! :)

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Tails Wx}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 01:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review! I'm glad to hear you enjoyed the article. :) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Maps (Billy Woods and Kenny Segal album) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Joeyquism -- Joeyquism (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Maps (Billy Woods and Kenny Segal album) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Maps (Billy Woods and Kenny Segal album) for comments about the article, and Talk:Maps (Billy Woods and Kenny Segal album)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Joeyquism -- Joeyquism (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice closing statement, quite detailed and explanatory. Thanks. Is it possible to add to it that the hatnote listing Mary, mother of Jesus is acceptable (it had support in the discussion and I, for one, did not weight in pro or con on the overall RM because the hatnote solved the concern)? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! I can add a quick note to my closing statement to mention that. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! The hatnote probably gives the RM the result it sought without changing the current primary topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. A bit late, I know, but it's been playing on my mind and I keep seeing it. This, I'm afraid, looks a bit like a supervote to me. While Byron and Tennyson (who are usually known as Byron and Tennyson anyway rather than their names and/or titles) are exceptions, as listed at WP:NCPEER, almost every other peer except those notable before they were ennobled is at the standard naming. There was clearly no consensus to move (one vote for Louis Mountbatten, six for Lord Mountbatten, five for retaining the status quo). The supporters certainly did not have stronger arguments. The new name is frankly a bit weird and populist and completely inconsistent with thousands of other articles. The later RM for Talk:Edwina Mountbatten, Countess Mountbatten of Burma#Requested move 28 June 2024 was overwhelmingly closed as not moved with two editors saying that had they spotted this RM they too would have opposed. I think this needs to be revisited. Thanks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the feedback, but I'm not certain I see the case for changing the existing close. It's certainly true that the "Lord Mountbatten" title is inconsistent with many of the other articles on British peers, but consistency is just one of the five article titling criteria; the titling criteria also include recognizability (discussed via WP:COMMONNAME in the RM) and concision, both of which were leveled in support of "Lord Mountbatten". I don't see the case for the consistency argument being so overwhelmingly dominant that it would outweigh both of the others; if I had allowed consistency to trump the other criteria so thoroughly, I feel that that would have been the true supervote.

As to the WP:NCPEER question, I found it pertinent that other examples of exceptions were raised during the discussion (Lord Kelvin, Lord Dunsany, etc). Byron and Tennyson are certainly the clearest-cut examples of COMMONNAME-driven exceptions to NCPEER's standard guidance, but the presence of other demonstrated examples made a plausible case that exceptions to NCPEER don't necessarily require the alternate title to predominate at the level that Byron's does. Looking back now, I think the phrasing of my original close overstates things by saying that the "Lord Mountbatten" title would be outright "preferable" under NCPEER's exception clauses, but I still do think a sufficient argument was raised to make the exception at least permissible. Ultimately, different commenters presented different interpretations of how WP:NCPEER should be applied to this subject, and I don't think either interpretation significantly outweighed the other. Consequently, the balancing of titling criteria continues to hold as the key policy question at play.

Finally, the comparable support numbers for Lord Mountbatten vs. the full title don't inherently prevent a finding of consensus. When the numerical margins are narrow on a consensus-building discussion, that's where the weighting of arguments becomes most relevant to determine whether a consensus has emerged. I would have no objection to a new RM on the topic (consensus can always change, after all), but I continue to believe that my close of the RM gave fair consideration to all the lines of argument presented in that discussion. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 October 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ka (rapper), which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Schwede66 03:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I would argue that WP:RMUM is being ignored. This was an undiscussed move and WP:RMUM is being ignored. A "no-consensus" would bring us back to the the original title, it would not keep the undiscussed title. Perhaps I could have made this clearer rather than attempting to re-litigate. However, x2 "no consensuses" does not endorse the undiscussed title. This is a concerning precedent, that undiscussed moves can be brute-forced into acceptance. Lastly, the onus should not be on me to defend the original title. The onus should be on the mover of the undiscussed title to defend their title. Simply because out of politeness, I did not revert the move during the MRV process as I was entitled to do, I was stuck with the burden of WP when the opposite should be true. I'm open to re-opening the RM in time, as you suggested, but if you have any other suggestions regarding moving forward, I would appreciate it. cheers MWFwiki (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC) MWFwiki (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct that a "no consensus" result on the RM would bring us back to the original title. However, a lack of consensus at a move review does not inherently imply a lack of consensus in the underlying RM. Rather, a no-consensus result at MRV implies that the original closure should stand, as there was not a consensus to overturn it. In this case, the original closure found there to be a consensus at the RM; thus, because the MRV did not find a consensus to overturn the close, the finding of consensus at the RM remains in force. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 23:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original closer agrees that there was a "clear lack of consensus." Additionally, as you said, "You're correct that a 'no consensus' result on the RM would bring us back to the original title," well, that's what happened; the move should have been reverted immediately upon the following: "The result of the move request was: no consensus. No consensus as responses have noted that the existence of future variants might change the situation and demand we re-visit this move at a later date." This original "no consensus" finding should have reverted us immediately, and I should not have been forced to go through this procedure. The onus should have immediately been shifted onto the mover. Perhaps I did not make this point clearly in my MRV argument, and if that is the casse, I apologize.MWFwiki (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original close isn't really relevant to this discussion – it was vacated by the original closer, so its findings are no longer in force. Even if the article title had been moved to AIM-174 at that time, it would have been moved back after the second closer found consensus for AIM-174B. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

…it was vacated because I requested the article to be reverted, and instead this process was started… so, again; the close improperly failed to revert the article. This needs to be addressed. There would not have been a "second closer" if this was handled per WP. MWFwiki (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what you're looking for from me at this point. The core of your concern seems to be that the first closer reopened the RM rather than simply moving the article. This is something they have the discretion to do; according to their own statement on the matter, they did this because they felt that the argument you made on their talk page introduced new facts that could affect the course of the RM discussion. Reopening the RM is a pretty common practice in such situations, but if you feel the closer acted inappropriately in doing so, the place to raise it is on their talk page, not mine—and they might even agree with you, given that they've expressed regret for reopening the discussion. (I too agree that things would have likely been simplest if the article was just moved then.)

Nevertheless, the RM was reopened, more discussion took place after the reopening, and it was closed again. This time around, the closure found consensus for AIM-174B, and this was the closure that was in force when the move review was opened. Accordingly, the participants at the move review all analyzed the closure that was currently in force, not the one that had been vacated weeks earlier. My only role in this whole situation was to evaluate the move review discussion and determine whether the participants there had reached a consensus on whether the extant RM closure was appropriate. I could potentially reopen the move review if you feel I erred in that evaluation, but if your goal is to change the underlying article title, I think it'd be easier (and likelier to succeed) if you just start a new RM discussion from scratch. The move review languished without comments or closure for so long because people were reluctant to untangle the complicated discussion history and figure out their opinions; by starting a separate RM, you can cut the argument loose from all its bureaucracy and make your case much more straightforwardly. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 23:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, my point of contention is primarily what you pointed-out in the first half of your response. And again, it was only re-opened at MY "request." Everything that occurred post-initial RM should be invalidated. It's a clear breach and again, improperly shifted the onus onto me for months. I was not the person that executed an undiscussed move.

Regardless, I appreciate your time and input. I will raise this issue with the original closer. Otherwise, I'm going to take it further. Just to be clear (and I will make it clear), no, I'm not suggesting you necessarily erred and I am most definitely not implying any bad faith on your behalf (or anyone else's). Simply that all action post-original RM is invalid, as the article should have been reverted upon a no-consensus closure, and that the executor of the undiscussed move should have been the one moving for RM re-opening and/or a MRV. thanks again, sorry to take-up your time :)

MWFwiki (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]