Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 December

2015 December
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #E2FFE2; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" |
 * Multiple pages – any editor in good standing is free to undo/revert any of the RM closures made by . If you wish to make an overturn and the admin tools are required, contact me on my talk page or post a request at one of the admin noticeboards and link this discussion. I'm closing this now because there is a clear consensus and, with TheJack15 blocked as a sockpuppet, there is surely no need for further input. However, please feel free to keep editing this (now closed) section if you want to, for example, add a list of what closures were overturned and what weren't. Jenks24 (talk) 10:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

appears to be a confirmed sockpuppet and has already been blocked on commons.

Both and I have brought up concern over move closures on their talk page, User talk:TheJack15.

There is an active SP case. This editor has made multiple controversial closures. Additional disruptive behavior is listed on the SP case. This review is to determine consensus on overturning all of the closures, and having them re-evaluated by experienced editors, and then making the appropriate moves as necessary.


 * List of talk pages he contributed to, primarily closing moves
 * Pages actually moved

Tiggerjay (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Revert all and block this account – An account that has existed for only 6 days shouldn't be doing these potentially controversial closes in any case. Some are clearly premature.  It's not clear what his game is, but it doesn't look sensible.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Sigh. I'm sorry to say I didn't follow up on the closer in one of the multi-move RMs. All the articles have now been moved, so it would be good to have an experienced admin take a look at the situation and re-close as they see fit.--Cúchullain t/ c 04:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This is all bullshit. I have spent a lot of my time reading over the closing instructions for requested moves. I have reopened a request after someone left the message on my talk page. I followed the instructions given to me by the admin who told me to revert the moves, and I don't think this meets the definition of "disruptive behavior". Aside from what you have accused me of, I have made many useful contributions that have highly benefitted Wikipedia. I have also made many useful contribs to Requested Moves. If you would like me to stop contributing to Requested Moves I will, but I don't think it is necessary to open a move review on me, because my contributions to requested moves are all in good faith. I apologize if I have disrupted Wikipedia in any way and that is why I will no longer assist at the Requested Moves page. TheJack15 (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You did not revert as requested at User talk:TheJack15. Please do.  Seven days over Christmas was not enough time to get much input, and you are not qualified to be doing non-admin closures.  Also please tell us with what account you got your WP experience, if not the one you're accused of socking.  Dicklyon (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm honestly not sure where to begin with regarding your statement regarding "useful contributions" -- of the 260 edits you have so far you have: violated copyright, violated sock puppetry rules, improperly closed moves, deleted AfD notices, and reported IP editors for vandalism who you haven't had any involvement with. Regarding "reading the closing instructions" clearly you are not reading them close enough, you haven't left edit summaries, improperly closing the discussion leaving bits of the rm template in place and involving yourself in contentious discussions without and established foundation in understanding the policies of Wikipedia regarding article title. I apologize if you feel like you are being dealt with harshly however a lot of evidence points to the fact that you are a distributive editor who has already been blocked before. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you please tell me which moves should be reverted? And I will revert them ASAP. TheJack15 (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * At this point I would say do nothing to those you have closed, as well as don't close any more move requests. Let's have an admin take a look over each one individually and make the correct closure. To have you revert now after the pages have already been moved may create a bigger mess. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and simply reverted the close at Talk:An Post-Chain Reaction, as it could take months for this MRV to get acted on, if history is any guide. If an admin objects, I'm happy to have him fix it some other way. Dicklyon (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Similarly I reverted at Talk:Mihrişah Valide Sultan for same reason. Let some discussion happen before closing. Dicklyon (talk) 05:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I would agree, lets revert any closes that did not result in a MOVE, and reopen them for discussion. And then leave those pages with moves for further discussion and action. Not much implication in reopening discussions. Tiggerjay (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I have left Talk:History of the Scots language as it was unanimously opposed; and reverted at Talk:Leonardo da Silva Moura that you had just relisted before he closed it. Talk:Archives Service Center, University Library System, University of Pittsburgh was relisted 9 days ago and still has no useful input; probably it should be started over after some consideration.  I reverted at Talk:Circumpolar peoples. Talk:Silent Intifada still had no support after 9 days relisting, so I'll let that go.  Jeeze, he did a lot of these.  I'll keep looking, and listening for any push-back. Dicklyon (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Going back, a lot of them probably won't upset anyone, so I left them (if anyone is upset, they can revert); I reverted at Talk:Interstate 164 which looked like it could use more discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 06:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am also doing likewise, will post a log here in a bit. Any experienced editor is welcome to object to the reverts or changed being made to cleanup this mess. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

<!--
 * Overturn all that are questionable. This not-really-new but also not-experienced-enough editor is clearly not competent to close RMs, and is doing them incorrectly and seemingly capriciously. I've addressed the particular case of this closure at Talk:An Post-Chain Reaction, in a commented-out subsection below. Should this multi-close review be rejected for some procedural reason (I haven't seen an admin chime in yet), please uncomment the An Post-Chain Reaction MR, which I wish to be considered severably as an active MR of its own in such an event. (I'm too swamped with other stuff to watch this page like a hawk. :-)   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

An Post-Chain Reaction


did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI in closing this requested move, for at least all of the following reasons (without getting into the sock-puppetry allegation, which remains presently just an allegation):
 * Unabashed supervote: "I think it's best to keep the page where it is."
 * Does not understand the distinction between no consensus and not moved.
 * Treated the comments as a head-count vote, and did not even count them correctly.
 * Multiple notices and ongoing threads at WT:MOS, WT:CYCLING, etc., have drawn attention to this RM, which had earlier had low turn-out due to the holidays, and commentary was newly and still active on it when TheJack15 closed it less than 12 hours after these notices. As another editor commented, "it appears you were in a rush to close before consensus (or lack of) could be established or formed."
 * A prior RM concluded against the current name of the article, so a re-RM requires more than a trivial amount of participation; the RM should have continued as-is, or been relisted.
 * Because the present RM contests an undiscussed move (that goes against a previous consensus discussion) the automatic default is to revert to the status quo ante name before the dispute arose, in the advent of no consensus, but the closer did not perform that necessary rename.
 * Closer does not appear to have weighed the merits of the arguments in any way. The support comments are based in WP:POLICY arguments (in regard to both policies per se and guidelines), while the first oppose is nothing but a "reword some other page to my satisfaction or else" ultimatum, and the second is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS argument (in which the claim of a local consensus is not actually supportable to begin with, and in which the "consistency" sought is not a result of consensus but of WP:FAITACCOMPLI), plus essentially the same demand as in the first, so neither oppose had much of any weight at all.
 * Despite the fact that MoS could be clarified a bit with regard to its dash-related wording (and before the closure ), it's actually clear that this case is in fact already addressed by MoS; it's precisely the same as the "Hale–Bopp" example.
 * Thus the "go fix the MoS first" basis of both opposes is moot, leaving zero opposition other than the LOCALCONSENSUS-based, "our wikiproject has its own standard" claim, which is invalid as a matter of policy with it conflicts with a site-wide guideline.

There are only three rational outcomes: No comment on whether the closer should be at least temporarily blocked or not. I see signs of contrition above, but I'm not monitoring the user's every steps, so I don't know if what ever else they're doing is constructive or disruptive. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC) -->
 * User has been blocked as a sock. Most not moved and no consensus closures have been reverted. Others which involved actual moves are being Morley slowly resolved since it take more than a simple reopen of th discussion.
 * Non-admin closures should not be performed when there's clearly room for doubt.
 * 1) Revert the close as erroneous nonsense, and leave it open until it's discussed better. [I note that it has been provisionally reverted by the RM nominator as disruptive, but a formal MR, or an administrative decision, in this regard might be appropriate.]
 * 2) Leave it closed, following the weight of the arguments and the low likelihood of some new, valid argument appearing against the RM, and then revert the undiscussed move away from the name decided in the previous RM.
 * 3) Relist it.
 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }