User talk:Omegatron/Archive/February, 2022

ANI Notification
There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Conduct problems at move discussion. Thank you. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * User:Djm-leighpark: I honestly don't understand what your complaint is, or why it's ANI-worthy, or what it has to do with me being an admin. Here is a summary, from my perspective:
 * VITT has emerged as the consensus name of this topic in scientific literature.
 * The current name is invented/non-standard, making the article difficult to find in Google search results, etc.
 * So I changed the name of the article to what I thought would be agreed to be better. I did not think this would be controversial, considering its use elsewhere.
 * You contested and reverted the move, which is fine.
 * When I tried to discuss with you why you contested the move, however, so we could reach consensus, you just said "It is contested because I have contested it" and asked me to make an official move request. OK...
 * So I made an official move request.
 * A few people commented, but not many, so I directly notified some people who previously had interest in the article, to get some more opinions. I did not know or care what their opinion would be; I just wanted a greater sample size. (It looks like I notified 5 people, and none responded to the move request, so my notifications did not have any effect at all.)
 * You say this is a violation of Canvassing, but that is about "notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way" which I did not have.
 * You say that I should "leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made, particularly if made to individual users". That's fine, I should have done that.  You could have asked me on my talk page to do so, and I would have.  You could also have just added the note yourself.
 * After some people commented, I tried to discuss their votes with them, trying to change their mind.
 * You say this is a violation of Don't bludgeon the process, but I don't believe so. I made my counterargument and left it at that.  I did not make "the same argument over and over, to different people" or "attempt to force my point of view by the sheer volume of comments".
 * As far as I am aware, it's a normal part of the move request process to discuss others' rationales, and indeed other participants did the same.  WP:Requested moves mentions "Responses to another editor are threaded and indented using multiple bullets", for instance.
 * As I found more sources that agreed with my argument, I added them to my move request rationale.
 * I think this is what you are referring to when you say "disruptive undated modifications and additions to discussion", and "change talk discussions, especially a nomination to which responses have been made, is a serious matter" and "talk interference"? Is that correct?  In what way is this disruptive?
 * WP:Requested moves says "nominations need not be neutral. Make your point as best you can; use evidence … and refer to applicable policies and guidelines".
 * User:Rosguill said "It would also have been better for them to have put their comments citing various sources beneath a discussion section header to separate it from the opening statement more" but WP:Requested moves says "Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line", so I'm not sure what the best practice is here. Is this just a concern about visual clutter?
 * After the move request was closed, I wanted to continue discussing the page title to see if we could understand each other's positions and find some agreement. After I posted one comment about this, you immediately escalated it to ANI??  That is for "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems."  That seems like an overreaction to me.
 * You say I should discuss the article title on User:Mike Cline's talk page, as closer of the move request, but a discussion about the article should be in the talk page for the article itself, so it can be seen by all interested parties. Are you implying that discussion about the article title is forbidden after a move request has been closed?  (But also that it's forbidden to discuss people's votes with them during the move request itself?)
 * I don't believe I have used admin tools at any point in this process, or threatened to use them, or even mentioned that I am an admin, as this is not relevant to a content dispute. I have been acting as an editor throughout.
 * I have not tried to move it again, and don't believe I have revert warred with you or anyone else about anything in this article.
 * I don't have any problem with you personally or think that you are at fault in any way, though you seem to perceive that I do, repeatedly implying that I am going to retaliate against you in some unspecified way, or that revealing your email to me would expose you to some kind of danger. (Mine is my username at gmail.)  Your tone implies that you're upset with me, and I don't think that's a good use of your energy.  I'm not a threat to you or to the encyclopedia, I'm not out to get you.
 * I don't understand why you're spending so much time on all this bureaucratic stuff instead of just having a discussion on the article's talk page. I'm obviously not going to change the article title again without a discussion, so if you really don't want it changed, you could just ignore my attempts at discussion and nothing further would happen...
 * Your proposed title is an improvement in my opinion, though excessively verbose. Do you want to propose it on the article's talk page and discuss it?
 * Responding to this is a lot of work. More so than actually productive research and editing of article content.  A lot of time and energy spent on something relatively trivial, just the title of an article.  During my research, I have found other sources and info to add to the article itself, but I'm demotivated to spend time on that, because of this exchange.
 * I'm going to go for a walk now, and then spend my free time on non-Wikipedia things for a while. — Omegatron (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The ANI thread was archived to Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1089, though you might find it useful to read it if you have not done so. Pinging me here to contest/discuss the close decision after failing to keep traction is a little unfortunate, and as per Talk:Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination please discuss with closer .  You may observe I did this at User talk:Mike Cline.  But basically if you ping me without going through due process a noteboard such as AN/ANI may await.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)