This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

There was a bit of discussion about the possibility of utilizing DRV for disputed Requested move closures. I'm not sure if I'd like that or not, personally, but it's probably a good idea to bring the subject up for discussion here. Regards,
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Is there a current venue to appeal an RM? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  Not really... a lot of people seem to just reopen another RM. Note though that this subject came up as a result of a bit of a dispute between a few administrators, one of whom used tools in order to "revert" a page move made due to a contested RM. Discussion took place rather than wheel warring over the article title (thankfully), and this is one of the outgrowths from that discussion. The debate about that specific incident continues at WT:RM and WP:ANI, but it's probably worth thinking about this separately.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  (ec) - Afaik, no. just a new RM. (Though WP:AN or AN/I has always been an option.) And if done too soon, those are typically summarily closed. (As I did rather recently.)

  I actually think this would be a good idea. (Though the page name might become something like: WP:DCRV - WP:Discussion closure review.)

  Not only a good idea, but a needed process! Depending on how you view WP:WHEEL, a first reversal is a violation of wheel warring if you take a liberal view. But clearly a second reversal would be wheel warring under any conceivable interpretation of the policy. So an avenue to review disputed closes is clearly needed. Otherwise, the position of the second person stands as a final decision. And that can be established without any discussion with other involved administrators or notice to them. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  I do think that if we're going to expand the scope of DRV along these lines, that is should be a more general expansion. I fine the idea of "Discussion closure review" much more palatable than sticking to a specific "Requested move review"... or, actually, even just "deletion review", now that I think about it.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  That rename proposal sounds good. There could be something better, but as an opening suggestion it could be a winner, if expansion is in the cards. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  "Discussion review" lets us keep the DRV acronym untouched. </bikeshed> 74.74.150.139 (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  No. this should clearly be about the closures. Otherwise it violates the long held:"DRV is not XFD2". Regardless, it can still have a shortcut of DRV if you like, after all, the "RV" part is merely the single word "review" : ) - jc37 02:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Though this idea makes some sense, one thing to consider is that "deletion review" reviews "deletions", some of which don't come about as a result of any discussions such as CSDs. (though I guess we could always shunt them over to REFUND). Also, if it becomes "discussions" we review and not just "deletions" then we need to start considering "keep vs no consensus" and "merge vs keep" issues which are discouraged right now because there's no deletion to review. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been thinking about that too. Sounds awful close to discussing oversight of admin actions... - jc37 02:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• This would fit better within a general overhaul of AFD where we merge in RM/AFD and also include merges and redirects to create Articles for Discussion with DRV the court of appeal for all such discussions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

  Merge discussions belong on the page of the merge target. It is the merge target that is going to have its content altered, and article content discussions belong on the article talk page. Merge nominations don't belong at AfD, and where "Merge" is an AfD result, it is only a recommendation for the editors at the merge target to deal with. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

  On one hand, I like the idea a lot. But on the other, I'm a firm believer that the actual page that the AFD appears on should be the talk page (or sub page of the talk page) of the article in question, and not on some subpage in project space. AFDs simply should be easier to get to. And going to talkspace is a lot less intimidating than going to comment in project space for some. (And since everything is done by templates and transclusion, I would think making this change would merely be a matter of editing templates.

  All other discussions regarding an article happen on it's talk page (or a subpage thereof if the discussion gets to be too large), no reason deletion discussions shouldn't as well. (Note that I'm only talking about Afd, not the rest of XfD.) - jc37 02:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

  "a firm believer that the actual page that the AFD appears on should be the talk page" A problem there is that on deletion, it is usual to delete the talk page. How about if the AfD page were transcluded onto the talk page? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

  We only delete talk pages due to housekeeping. And honestly, I think that that is a practice that we should also stop for articles. For one thing, if people saw previous discussions, they "might" give some consideration before re-creating a page. It might also go a fair way dealing with "bite". If commenting on the talk pages of deleted pages is a problem, there's always protection (as is sometimes done to archives). We could still delete talk pages (or revisions thereof) due to BLP and other such stuff. - jc37 04:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about reviewing challenged closes in general. Does that include RfCs and RfCUs? Will it review bureaucrat closes of RfA? Will it lead into block and unblock discussion closes and other dispute resolution cases?

I don't think WP:DRV should be so easily expanded. It has a special role as a "highest court" for whole topic content decisions. Ongoing article name disputes are not the same thing.

Can I suggest a page as a spinout of Wikipedia:Requested moves to be called Wikipedia:Requested moves review, shortcut WP:RMRV. It could review improper WP:RM closes, and analogous to WP:DRV, it should not be allowed to function as WP:RM#2. Challenges to historic or WP:BOLD page moves should go to fresh WP:RM nominations. I'd note here that a challenged Move should be promptly reverted or not by default according to the WP:RETAIN criterion, and then the discussion proceeds.

No, afaik, this discussion is limited to content discussions. (I'd consider a discussion of an article name to be a content discussion. But if it sounds better to say "content and MoS discussions", I'm fine with that.) - jc37 02:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Article titles (page moves) are not content discussions. They involve a whole lot more subtlety. I fear the messing up of DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I don't see this bleeding into bureaucrat areas at all, personally. I understand the point that Article titles are not content per se, but they are close enough to the equivalent of article content from the perspective that we're talking about here that I don't think is matters much.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

While article titles are not content, they do influence the content of articles and the content of articles influences the name. There are a number of RM discussions where the effect of the title on allowed content occur. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• I see AfD as deciding along a continuum of keep ↔ merge ↔ redirect ↔ delete, so I think that RM is a poor fit. Regarding a new review process, are there enough moderately-contested RMs to populate it, or are there a few intractable ones that should be pushed through existing WP:Dispute resolution? For comparison, Bulbasaur (between a separate article and a redirect to a list entry) had numerous edit wars, three AfDs, a DRV, and an Arbitration case. Oddly, WP:Articles for deletion/Bulbasaur (3rd nomination) was closed as no consensus, and the dispute sputtered out. Flatscan (talk) 04:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

  I don't know... moving a page, vs merging and redirecting? Either way, the content is moving. That we contain content in "an article page" is merely a facet of Wiki technology. - jc37 04:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

  AfD could also determine that the content be removed completely via deletion. You are right that they overlap in certain cases. For WP:BLP1E, Person X and Event Y, the outcome will usually be the Event Y article only; which process is used depends on the starting state. Page names determine article scope, but some contested names have the same underlying article, e.g. yogurt/yoghurt or diacritics, and AfD is useless for them. Flatscan (talk) 04:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Anyone who thinks the current process for reviewing RMs is OK should take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive746#Improper move by admin. The RM in question would be analogous to an AfD being discussed at WT:AFD, three uninvolved admins all agree that the debate should be closed as "delete", so one of those admins closes as "delete". This closure is then reverted by another admin who feels the decision was incorrect. Another admin cannot re-revert to the original decision because they will be accused of wheel-warring. So, they discuss it but neither person wants to change their position and when the issue gets taken to ANI, after a bit of RM-take-2 discussion and comments about the pros and cons of diacritics, the only admin to weigh in on the discussion concludes that it's a good example of BRD. This would not happen if it were an AfD and it should not happen to RMs.

  So basically, RM is in need of a review process. Wikipedia:Requested moves review sounds like a nice idea, but I don't think RM has the numbers to support a review process on its own. I understand that changing to "discussion review" could open up a can of worms, but couldn't we just tack on a footnote that says "DRV will also review requested move closures"? What would be the harm? (As a bit of a side note, does DRV review CfD discussions that only involve renaming?) Jenks24 (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

  • To answer your last question, as far as I know any CfD discussion is reviewable here, so yes. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Any DRV nomination over a CfD category rename close is extremely likely to result in at most "Relist at CfD", which is something the DRV nominator might have done in the first place. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

This is something which (I seem to recall) has come up a couple times over the past few years. Each time it's been turned back because there aren't enough appeals to justify it. As annoying and seemingly disruptive as these can be, I think they are notable especially because they are relatively unusual. That said, it would probably be helpful to have a standard process for reviewing move discussion closures, so that when these situations do crop up, there's no dispute about the procedure to follow. I think Deletion Review is not the right place for Move Reviews, simply because the areas of expertise are so different. Perhaps adding a "Move Review" (or something) section to the WP:RM page? Or, more precisely, a subpage transcluded into the main RM page, so we diehard RM fans can watchlist it specifically?--Aervanath (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• I suggest listing challenged WP:RM closes at Wikipedia:Requested moves review. If there aren't enough to justify a process, then there aren't enough to require archiving of the page, and so no "process" is required. Some advertising may be needed should actionable discussions occur. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I personally would think it should be a subpage: WP:Request moves/review or similar, which would then be transcluded to WP:RM. It may not need to be archived, but there should still be a clear procedure on WP:RM of "what you should do if you think a close was made in error". I envision that the "review" page would have a transcluded part and a non-transcluded part: the transclusion would only carry open appeals, the non-transcluded parts would have links to closed move appeals, so we can go through old appeals for precedents and such. For a first rough draft, see User:Aervanath/Move appeals.--Aervanath (talk) 08:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Are there any WP:RM regulars here? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I was until the issue that caused this was not resolved. But yes, this sounds worth a try. The ANI discussion was left with no close, so potentially that could be moved to see if there can be a decision. Some questions that need resolution. How long should the discussion say open? Seven days? 14? When we add this, do we strongly recommend that before taking issues to dispute resolution that the person try to resolve the issue with the closer? I think we all should accept the fact that if we do this, the way it is implemented will change as we learn from doing a few. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• It is worth a try. Start with the DRV rules. Seven days. Speedy close vexatious or personally attacking nominations. Request, but do not insist on, first approaching the closer for an explanation. Proclaim RMRV is not WP:RM#2. If the facts are in dispute, or there is new evidence, it goes back to WP:RM.
• Aervanath, can we have templated links for each entry. It provides symbolism of officialness. It makes routine review easier. I can load the standard links quickly and easily over a slow connection. To review a RM close, I think I'd like to see: (1) the article; (2) its talk page; (3) article incoming links; (4) article history; (5) article logs showing all past page moves. All of this for both (how often more than two?) title alteranatives. Maybe a Wikipedia-search on the disputed/proposed titles?
• Should this thread be moved, copied, or transcluded to WT:RM? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Interested parties should note that User:Vegaswikian has created a Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review draft.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)