Tech News: 2025-06

edit

MediaWiki message delivery 00:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

It is not "gaming the system" to appropriately report an undiscussed move for reversion

edit

I would expect editors to WP:AGF when someone brings to the attention of the Requested moves technical board a contentious move that should be reverted, rather than accusing someone (me) of "gaming the system". Just because a discussion is underway doesn't preclude the appropriate thing - reestablishing the stable version - from occurring so that the discussion can take place in a more appropriate fashion. Even if your assertion that no consensus is found, this would normally mean the page should be moved to the previously-stable title. --Pinchme123 (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Pinchme123: Thank you for coming to my talk page to ask this question. You are correct that requesting a revert to a undiscussed moved is not gaming. However, based on policy, a page should not be moved […] when there is already an open move request on a talk page., as that further creates instability, as well as presents confusion for people participating in the discussion both before and after the reverted move. This is further discouraged when, at the time of your request, consensus was leaning against your proposal. By requesting the move after you !voted, gives the appearance of a sort-of-supervote and/or gaming - even if that was not your intention. Had this request for a referral occurred before a RM was started, it would have been promptly performed, without any question. If you were not involved in the RM discussion, then it might have still been reverted. But an involved editor in the middle of an RM asking for their preferred change (regardless of the reason) during an option discussion is inappropriate. Only exception would be a revert to any move which occurs during an open discussion which is what you’re asking for. TiggerJay(talk) 03:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
There was no question asked. I made statements. Given that I didn't share my opinion of where the article title should land, only that the title should be reverted to its stable form while discussion occurs (a note about policy), you're further ascribing motives to me without evidence. I will again ask you to assume good faith. I will also further point out that the exact same policy page you're quoting from (without a link, thanks for making me search for it), also says explicitly about requests for reverts: "if the new name has not become the stable title, the undiscussed move will be reverted." I would say a reversion is not a move, it is a return to stability so that the move discussion can happen in good faith. So, for the third time, I will ask you to assume good faith in those who bring technical requests explicitly within the policy page relevant to all of this, and who express only the narrow technical reading of policy in their note, rather than accusing them of seeking a supervote.
Finally, when I made my technical request for reversion, the count of the not-vote was one !vote to change the title back (not just revert while discussion occurs), one explicit !votes to keep it as-is, one implied !vote to keep it as-is, two !votes to revert for discussion, and three !votes to split into two pages, meaning each of the proposed titles. It takes a particularly slanted viewpoint to read that as "consensus was leaning against" your made-up version of "[my] proposal". So, you guessed it, for the fourth time, I will ask you to assume good faith.
--Pinchme123 (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I believed “the question” you were asking was effectively why I made the decision that I did. But instead if you are simply “making statements” in the form of lodging accusations, then I guess I assumed too much good faith in your intentions to have a civil conversation about why I believe policy supports the action taken. But given your follow on reply and your further posting on the talk page, it makes it increasingly difficult to assume good faith.
To be quite clear I never said you were gaming the system, in both the initial response and above, rather I quite clearly said in my statement regarding the TR, it give the appearance of gaming and then above, gives the appearance […] even if that was not your intention. It was simply an advisory to you about how it looks, because I was presuming a lot of good faith in your request. If you took those as accusations, you are wrong, but I cannot control how you choose to feel about such statements.
However, I will continue to assume you have honorable and civil intentions. I will also further make good faith assumptions given that anything regarding US politics is very emotionally taxing for many people and maintaining civil conversations are difficult for many. However, civility and AGF does not mean simply avoiding contentious discussions.
Toward that end, I’m going to AGF that I think you might also be assuming that I closed your request, but if you look at the history, I only commented on the request and another volunteer actually closed the discussion via deleting your request.
Furthermore, as stated in both messages, I believe it should be reverted under normal circumstances. Yet the way this was proposed was not normal, and the other volunteer who removed the discussion appears to agree as they stated for you to wait out the RM discussion as well. Yet for some reason you’re only upset at me? As you can see, I tend to leave those discussions over at RMTR open for a long time so people have the opportunity to discuss further.
Now, I have no objection to you raising a new technical request to revert the move if you really feel that strongly about it. I will fully abstain from that, and you are welcome to see if another editor sees it differently.
If you have further questions or would like to engage in policy discussions you’re also welcome to reply here. But if you want to simply cast statements without a desire for a civil conversation, it will be promptly archived TiggerJay(talk) 05:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
1) People don't have to ask you questions for the engagement to count as civil; statements without attacks or unfounded accusation are civil conversation. 2) Nice to see you backpedal so quickly on your strong implications that I was engaging in forum-shopping, that you were 'merely' pointing out that others could take it to be such, not that you'd ever take it to be such, you just needed to point it out as a comment on the request just in case, and also declare the request "inappropriate", but you know, that isn't about my conduct. No not at all. ...sure. 3) I'm not so ill-informed to find both comments on my request, before it was then removed by a third editor, to not understand which editors took which actions. I came to you of the three editors because you were the only one of the three to strongly suggest I had ill intent and that my request was not just something that should not be done, but was actually "inappropriate". And 4) Good job completely ignoring the exact policy statement I quoted showing that, at the very least, there's ambiguity in this situation between the policy statements we both quoted. Really good job engaging in policy discussion. Enjoy archiving this! --Pinchme123 (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2025 (UTC)Reply