Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 March

2020 March
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #E2FFE2; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" |
 * Ice age (disambiguation) – Decision endorsed. The WP:NAC may not have been advisable, but it appears to be a correct reading of the result. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 08:35, 20 April 2020 (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;" |
 * (Discussion with closer)
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * (Discussion with closer)

Although there were reasonable points based on PT#2 against the move, the arguments that it failed PT#1 were surely stronger and contained more explanation and references to guidelines, views and how people search, also 5 were in favour v only 3 against so it seems like among the strength and number of arguments that there was a narrow consensus to move. Closer suggested taking it to move review from my objection to the close. It could also be relisted but given that it had been open for over 18 days that might not have been necessary.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Endorse closure. Head-counting is not how we do things. There were reasoned arguments on both sides in a moderately well-attended debate, and no clear winner; therefore, WP:NOCONSENSUS. No prejudice against a future WP:RM. Narky Blert (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I know head counting isn't how we do things, I was pointing that as well as the stronger arguments there were more support, a factor that is often taken into account after the strength of arguments.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 05:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet again, we have a relatively new Wikipedian presumably trying to be helpful, but WP:NAC closes of all but clear cut cases are not helpful if they mean revisiting the whole thing here at WP:MRV. Sure, budding soon to be administrators can prove their wisdom by clever NAC closes, but this NAC closer is not cleverly persuading the complainant, and so the close is a net negative. I suggest to the closer that they would best contribute to the project here by reverting their close for an admin to close.
 * That said, I really can’t see that discussion closed any other way. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Endorse closure. Clear no consensus. Support arguments were not stronger, given the very common capitalisation of the primary term in the sources. Correct closure. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , you crack me up... "Yet again, [complaints about NAC]. Good close." What makes you think we wouldn't be here if an admin had closed it no consensus? If the closer did what you suggested and self-reverted, and then another admin re-closed as no consensus, do you think the MR would not still be filed? In that case, we will have spent even more time, which would be even more of a net negative. With respect, your anti-NAC digression is out of line. Suggesting a non-admin closed a discussion because they are "budding soon to be administrators" or are trying to "prove their wisdom by clever NAC closes" is kind of a personal attack, certainly an ad hominem, and certainly WP:ABF. This is a volunteer who volunteered their time to assess consensus. And did so correctly. Opinions about NACs should be at WT:NAC; here, we should just apply the global consensus that exists regarding NACs (WP:RMNAC), rather than write things that make non-admin closers feel bad about the volunteer work they've done. Especially when it's a good close, which this was, because both sides had solid policy-based arguments, and there just wasn't general agreement one way or another. Endorse closure. Levivich&thinsp;[ dubious – discuss] 07:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What makes you think we wouldn't be here if an admin had closed it no consensus?. The fact that admins as a rule make better closing statements, and respond better to queries about their closes.
 * Red  Slash  23:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If the closer did what you suggested and self-reverted, and then another admin re-closed as no consensus, do you think the MR would not still be filed? Yes.  The questioner would know that an admin's close should be respected unless there is a clear reason otherwise.  If the closer is a non admin, and he doesn't understand the close, why should he think the closer understood anything better?
 * Red  Slash  23:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * With respect, your anti-NAC digression is out of line. Rubbish.  BADNACs, the closing of close calls, provides for the majority of MR business.
 * Red  Slash  23:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "budding soon to be administrators" is the typical support for why non admins are allowed to attempt difficult cases. If they make a good job of it, it is evidence to point to at RfA.  At RfA, many ask about how they would perform close calls.
 * Red  Slash  23:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NAC is good. Consensus there is clear.  WP:RMNAC is not good.  It is on a backwater instruction page and was written into it without consensus.
 * Red  Slash  23:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not agree it was a "good" close. It was a "correct" close.  However, the close demonstrably fails to convince someone.  The closer's answer on their talk page fails to impress.  I really understand how you feel about the closure. But, you don't expect me to just discard all the Opposes on the discussion. Hence, the no consensus result is a non-explanation.  It's okay. If you really think and believe that there was a narrow consensus to move. Take it to move review and hopefully, it'll be sorted there once and for all is a complete failure to take responsibility for the close.  Someone has a question, flick it to WP:MR.  That is much help.
 * You wrote: both sides had solid policy-based arguments. That's another non-statement, non-explanation. A person asking about the close obviously doesn't see the "solid policy-based arguments" the way you do, and asserting "solid policy-based arguments" at them explains nothing.  A better closing statement, or later explanation, would point to at least one solid policy-based argument for, and one solid policy-based argument against, both not well countered, as the explanation for no consensus.  Anything less does not advance the explanation for the questioner.
 * It was a no consensus. Participants on both sides are citing valid reasons, and talking past each other.  Someone says DIFFCAPS carries the proposal.  Someone else says DIFFCAPS is a fading practice.  That matches policy talk threads, such as Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive_57.  The RM contains seven instances of "clear", with almost that many perspectives on what is clear.  The only participant in the RM working much to turn the voting into the consensus building exercise is User:Crouch,_Swale, who raised good points that went unanswered.  When such a discussion is closed with a bland "no consensus" and the followup discussion ends with "Take it to move review and hopefully, it'll be sorted there", it really isn't good enough.  The close was correct, but it was not a good close, and the closer should not walk away thinking they did an OK job wrapping up a contested discussion.  The closer, User:Nnadigoodluck, should either be here defending their close, or reverting their close.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps maybe it should have been relisted again.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 07:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say no in this case. There have been some good points made about the inadequate closing statement and the questionable handling of the situation by the closer on their talk page, but one relist should usually be enough, especially when the most recent post was eight days prior to the close. This was brought to MRV for good reason; however, that survey and discussion was finished, and there was definitely no consensus. Another relist was not the answer.  PI Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 08:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t think relisting would be justified, but then I think relisting is pointless compared to leaving it open. Someone clever might have Relisted with a good refocusing comment. No, instead, I think DIFFCAPS needs to be continued as a policy discussion, as it was. Actually, I think DIFFCAPS should be removed as a LINKBOX SHORTCUT from the policy page, as it does not enjoy consensus, is not clearly written anyway, and accordingly it should not be considered a policy-based reason.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * DIFFCAPS appears to enjoy more consensus than years ago especially since the Red Meat example (a case where the upper case topic had less than 1/71 of the views of the lower case meaning) has now been removed. Years ago (say 2008) there was far less guidance on this. Similar to here users explained how readers would benefit from placing theDAB at the Title Case title in accordance with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, again the opposers didn't provide a significant amount of evidence that the Title Case version primarily refers to the age. I also don't think the non-admin in its self is a problem and I would have dealt with this in the same way had this been an admin. I've filed hundreds of RMs and maybe questioned the closure of around half a dozen but haven't started MRs of any of them (note that I'm not even the nom) see a discussion at User talk:Dekimasu for a close by an admin that I am discussing. That said the point about overlooking/discarding the oppose views came up again here when even though we might not discard/ignore a comment it doesn't have to necessarily be given the same amount of weight.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "DIFFCAPS appears to enjoy more consensus"? I don't think that is right.  That is certainly your contention, explicitly in the RM, and in the RM it is actively disagreed with.  I consider it contentious.  Maybe "contentious" is too strong a word, because it is repeatedly brought up at WT:AT, but few engage, and this makes me think that the majority does not particularly care.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Endorse and agree with Smokey Joe's good points.  PI Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 08:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Overturn consensus matters, otherwise why discuss. Lightburst (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Endorse - DIFFCAPS itself has a lot of ambiguity. I honestly regret having codified it into our doctrine--looking back on it, it's silly. Lots of people don't care about capitalization when they search for things; most search engines are not case-sensitive. Anyway, that's a tangent. I wish the closer had elucidated more, but the close is reasonable on the merits. Red   Slash  23:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Red Slash, you’ve interspersed a but of “citation needed” tags into my post above. That implies that you want to discuss further.  I note that you were a bold NAC closer, and yes you do have quite a history bold codification of RM doctrines, overbold in my opinion, especially at RMCI, and including RMNAC.  It’s worth discussing at WT:RM.  Somethings, like how RM NACs constitute the bulk of MR business is WP:BLUESKY.
 * On this matter, you wish the closer had elucidated more, great, but what are you going to do about it, or help do about it. I note that the closer User: Nnadigoodluck has archived notification of this review without even posting here to acknowledge it.  That is an accountability failure.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I did. First, there are far fewer admins on Wikipedia than non-admins, so obviously we would expect more RMNACs than RMACs, so we would therefore naturally expect more non-admin closures here. If you want to go look through all the closures of all RMs and see the percentage of non-admin closures, and then compare it to the percentage of non-admin closures on WP:MRV, you are more than capable of doing so. Until then, yes, a citation is needed that non-admins end up on WP:MRV disproportionately, lest your claim be as pointless as saying "Most of the problems in my life come from people not named 'Fred', so I shall only trust people named Fred from now on".


 * Second, no one has ever provided evidence that RMNAC closers are admins in training. That's a strawman argument. We close because it's a necessary part of the encyclopedia's business and we like to do it.


 * Third, this particular closer didn't do a fantastic job. Granted. But admins as a rule make better closes? Really? Cite me that one. Red   Slash  21:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Red_Slash, good answers thank you. I need to clarify myself:
 * I am not against non admins closing RMs, but I do think a proper standard should be maintained. I think all closers should should be cautious and careful closing contested discussions.  If the close is not obvious, the close must be explained, in the closing statement.  The WP:ADMINACCT level of accountability for the close must be assumed by NAC-ers.  In this case, the closer does not meet the standard.
 * This forum, WP:MRV, is for reviewing closes, and the process generally. It is not RM#2.  I think some people are !voting "Endorse" because it was the right result, and not because it was a good close.  I think you have made yourself clear.  I think the standard bold statements "Endorse" vs "Overturn" are too inarticulate.
 * A good NAC-er will revert their close if they can't explain their close to a reasonable complainant. They should not say: Take it to move review and hopefully, it'll be sorted there.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Good answers yourself, Smokey. (Or rather, .) I agree with you 100% on an ADMINACCT-level accountability for non-admin closers. I agree with you on endorsing closes that are correct but done poorly; I think that happens here because our focus isn't on making sure the process is right but rather the final result. As for your final point, any good closer should revert their close if they can't explain it. Red   Slash  22:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)