Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:47, 19 March 2014

2014 March

Period 1 element

Period 1 element (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

I nominated 9 pages for a move on the WikiProject Elements talkpage. On the talkpage of the first page of the list, an RM notice with link was placed: Talk:Period_1_element#Requested move. {{requested move}} containing a linked notice was subst'ed and bot-processed. So a difference with MR standard procedure was, that nomination and notification had swapped pages. Then editors posted contributions below the notification too, thereby opening a second thread.

User:BrownHairedGirl closed the MR with this whole rationale (ref notes like added by DePiep):

The result of the move request was: not moved. This proposal was a procedural disaster, because instead of listing a properly-formatted RM per Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Requesting_multiple_page_moves, the nominator split the discussion over two separate pages. The proposal was rejected on both pages, so the outcome is clear. RM page 2nd thread

After the closing I asked the closer to clarify and correct, in two posts. With their second reply, the closer also closed that talkpage discussion. Below I'll describe the issues from the closing ratio, expanded where needed with pointing to the ensuing talkpage talks. From User talk:BrownHairedGirl: DePiep, talk1 BrownHairedGirl, reply1 DePiep, talk2 BrownHairedGirl, reply2+closing.

A hiccup away from the full procedure indeed, but not a disaster. Proposal and notification were simply swapped. No 'formatting' problems seen. Prescribed template {{requested move}} was subst'ed and then processed by the bot, so it listed correctly. A "disaster"? Misplaced Pages did not break down, and any closer could have easily overseen the situation. Starting a discussion at a project talkpage is not out of order. Now the closer can add a little dramatic wording, but in the light of other statements (more below) this 'disaster' conclusion might be unreasonably strong. It may also have prevented a more appropriate action.

No, it was not the nominator who split the discussion. Someone else started a thread below the notification. This erroneous statement was made while closing, and sustained in subsequent talks. Later the closer may state that "I am not interested in how" but as a fact of error it stands. (Really not interested? For sure they did write it in a small closing reasoning, which proves that it was part of it. And in the replies, BrownHairedGirl shows they still do not see the cause of the split while it is visible at first glance), Then, by seeing it this way the nominator prevented themselves from taking a more appropriate action like procedural correction. I also note that, had the procedure been followed exactly to the letter, the same issue could have arisen (editors contributing below a notification). Anyway, this lack of overview by the closer awarded wrong postings (good faith postings in the wrong place), when writing that a even "deliberate excercise in disruption" would not matter . That is opening the door to gaming the system. Also, in the nomination and near the end of the discussion, I explicitly pointed to procedural options. The closer did not take heed or respond to these suggestions.

"was rejected on both pages" No. The RM page has a 2:1 vote count in favor of Move. When one resorts to !vote counting, at least the counting should be correct. This may be an undecisive detail, but the factual error is there. Afterwards BrownHairedGirl motivated one dismissal in : "That lone supporter chose not to format their view as a !vote, which leads me to attach a little less weight to it". Throwing out an argument because of not formatting as a !vote? By which right? The editor of this dismissed argument responded (feline1: ).

Actually, the dismissed argument did contain substance, which cannot be said of a 'me too' rejection post . The 'me too' was kept in all countings without further qualification.

Then BrownHairedGirl wrote "3 out 4 editors who expressed a preference" (to reject) . Here too and again, BrownHairedGirl does not count the nominator. The count is: 3:2 (or 3 out of 5) !voted rejection. So, to maintain that on that page the proposal was "rejected", BrownHairedGirl had to eliminate two contributions including the nomination. This is written in the second talk reply after closing, so it is entrenched not a mistake. !vote counting is explicitly disapproved in WP:RMCI. But when one does count, at least the numbers must be added right.

"so the outcome is clear" - Eh no. Apart from the explicitly wrong voting count proven above, the argumentation also does not support rejection of the proposal. WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS simply says: Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Closer did not put any argument to the test. These points were addressed on the usertalk page, but not convincingly addressed or even clarified. As said, with their second reply BrownHairedGirl declared the talkpage discussion(s) closed .

Seeing the failed basic argument reading and counting, I find no solace in BrownHairedGirl's defense that we editors are "complaining to the messenger", and instead should be "learning how to make consensus-forming discussions work properly" . Recently I read this 2nd take, which still did not enlighten me into the reasoning. Nor did I see any spirit of RMCI reflected by the closer.

Concluding. As demonstrated, the statements about the discussion were wrong. Although in itself such an error may be irrelevant, the fact of the errors says that the conclusion was based on wrong reasoning. No stable argument for non-RMCI !vote counting has been brought forward, while arguments present have not been weighed. This merits overturning the close.

That brings us to the procedural issue: once MR is reopened for MRV review, is there a relisting or other procedural correction needed? To be 100% formal, maybe yes. But in my opinion, the content of the discussion already leads to an outcome. That outcome is present on both pages, both separately and taken together.

In short, the proposal has these steps: 1. Scientific name, 2. WP title policy check, 3. Disambiguation check. Re 1: The scientific name is "period 1" &tc. No one in all contested this. Re 2. Good as a title? The three opponents argued from the perception of 'title is not clear to me', which is understandable but not part of title policy at all. Also, no solution was given for the linguistical deviation: 'Team A' is not the same as 'Team A member(s)'. Re 3. Is disambiguation needed (conflicting titles ahead)? No. So from policy reasons, undisputed, the Move is sound. I conclude to Overturn close and move to proposed titles. DePiep (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC) (minor edit DePiep (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC))

• Response from closer. This move request was based on the proposition that scientific usage does not include the word element. The opposition to it was based on a concern that removing the word "element" made the titles less recognisable.

Both those arguments are valid points per WP:AT; recognisability is a central concept of the guideline. It says at the top: This page in a nutshell: Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources.

Since both arguments were founded in policy, this was a case where editorial judgement would weigh the options. The nominator suggested at one point that since the common name is "period x", any disambiguation should be done by adding a parentheseised disambiguator "period x (element)". That point was specifically contested with the argument that "parenthetical disambiguation is the least preferred", which is also founded in WP:AT's stress on the merits of naturalness.

Since all arguments were well-founded in policy, my job as closer was to count the support for the different options. That task was complicated by the fact that the nominator had not structured the nomination properly. Instead of the conventional process of a discussion raking place on the talk page of the first listed article, the nominator instead used that talk page to direct editors to WT:ELEMENTS. That would have been fine if editors had followed it, but some of them didn't. Presumably there were used to the discussion taking place immediately below the RM notice on the article talk page which is linked to from WP:RM.

The result was that the discussion was split between two sections. This was not the nominator's intention, but it was an unsurprising effect of a malformed nomination. Any such discussion is contaminated, because editors participating in either location cannot be assumed to have seen al the relevant arguments. In closing any such debate as anything other maintaining the status quo, the closer would have to be very sure that the procedural failings had not impeded a clear consensus.

In this case, there was a clear consensus at both locations in favour of the status quo. So no matter which way I looked at this proposal, it had failed. No particularly strong policy-based arguments to favour one side over the other, and at both locations, more editors favoured the status quo.

Unfortunately, the nominator appears unwilling to accept two simple facts about this discussion: a) that the nom's procedural error impeded the discussion; b) that whichever way it is weighed, more editors opposed the proposal than supported it. The nom's approach to me on my talk page was verbose, wikilawyering, and somewhat silly -- because De Piep asked me to actually "do move" the pages despite the extent of opposition.

Having closed the discusion on my talk because I felt that I was being badgered into altering my close into one unspported by the discussion, the nominator then tried having another go at me. I reverted that.

This review request is yet more wikilawyering. I won't waste time replying to all of it, but I will take two points.

Falsehood #1. DePiep claims that I stated that even a "deliberate excercise in disruption" would not matter . That is opening the door to gaming the system.'

This is not just distortion of what I wrote; it is a blatant inversion of my point that any procedural flaw, whether in good faith or bad, impedes consensus-formation. What I wrote

WP:CONSENSUS is a fundamental principle of Misplaced Pages; it is the basis of how we make decisions. A discussion split over two locations is no more appropriate for reaching a consensus than a face-to-face discussion which is happening in two separate rooms.
I am not interested in how the discussion came to be split. It may have been a good faith decision on how to structure the discussion, a mistake by editor(s) who intended to do something else, a misuderstanding of the intentions of the nominator, or a deliberate exercise in disruption. I assumed that it was a good faith error or errors, but the tenor of Feline1's post above tempts me to revise that view.
What matters to me as a closer is that the discussion was split. That means that there was not a coherent discussion, so it cannot be assessed as a consensus to move.

Falsehood #2. DePiep asserts above that "The RM page has a 2:1 vote count in favor of Move". Again, that is simply untrue. At Talk:Period 1 element#Requested_move, the move was opposed by User:SmokeyJoe and User:Xoloz, and supported by nobody except the nominator.

Any editor has the right to request a move review. But in this case, I really do wonder why DePiep bothers to make such a blatantly dishonest request for review. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

"dishonest" is an aspersion that does not belong on this page. I request withdrawal by BrownHairedGirl. -DePiep (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You made a series of demonstrably false claims. That is blatant dishonesty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

No. Statements could be wrong, but you have not proven bad intention. Withdraw please. -DePiep (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

If they are not intentionally false, then feel free to withdraw them using WP:Strikethrough. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You have written the accusation of "dishonesty", it is up to you to prove or withdraw. After that, whether statements are correct or not can be discussed. To be clear: at this moment, you still have made an unproven accusation of bad intention. -DePiep (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

So far as I am concerned, it is proven by the facts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding the period 1 element Move review. The thread is I think BrownHairedGirl needs a talk. Thank you. (edit conflict) -DePiep (talk) 12:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse close. All procedural matters aside, it is clear that there is a lack of consensus favoring the proposed move, and the discussion was therefore closed correctly. bd2412 T 17:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

User:BrownHairedGirl, I find you behaviour here completely ahine. We are simply trying to tidy up a longstanding ungainlyness in the naming of certain chemistry articles (which, to the best of my memory, arose from some endearing Englrish from an overenthusiastic 14 year Hong Kong high school student in about 2004), and for some reason which quite eludes me, you have chosen to obfuscate the process with a bizarre mixture of bloodyminded bureaucracy and personal attacks against editors. Will you please just go away and take a nap and let some other admin who isn't a complete mentalist handle things? And please don't start babbling wikipedia mantras at me like we're in some kind of unsane Maoist commune. As for User:BD2412, I cannot see the value of consensus if several of the parties involved didn't know what they were talking about.--feline1 (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Feline1, you should learn to distinguish between criticising conduct and making personal attacks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

There you go again! It's like talking to some kind of cult-member who can only parrot cult-speak phrases! I don't need to learn to distinguish anything. What YOU need to do is stop attacking DePiep, stop attacking me, and indeed just stop, generally.--feline1 (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@feline1, there are hundreds of Wikipedians who work on chemistry topics; of those, only two expressed the opinion that the current naming scheme was a problem needing to be changed. The fact that the proposed target, "Period 1", is by itself ambiguous is a sound reason to oppose the proposed move. Furthermore, this usage may be uncommon, but it is not unheard of, nor is period 2 element. If there was consensus for a move, these concerns would not be sufficient to counter it, but here there was no consensus, nor much involvement from the community with respect to the question at all. bd2412 T 01:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@bd2412 "only two expressed the opinion" - so you're calling User:BrownHairedGirl a liar then, when she insists there was only one? Careful, she'll lambast you for being dishonest :) As you say, HUNDREDS of Misplaced Pages editors work on chemistry articles, and less than half a dozen commented on this proposed move, so I do not see how we can claim there was consensus amongst the chemistry community! The discussion clearly got nobbled by some bureaucratic quirks, and I therefore support User:DePiep's request that we have it again, calmly and sensibly, without deranged admin's attacking everyone. This page here is not the place to have that discussion itself, although for what it's worth, I can't see how you are correct to claim that Period 1 is ambiguous - if it were, there would already be an article for some other, non-chemistry usage of that name. Which there isn't. And in any case, the proposed redirects would prevent any ambiguity, as anyone using the oddly phrased "Period 1 Element" would still be taken straight to the article. What you must get your head around is that this whole thing only arose because 14-year-old Derek had a homework question "What is a Period 2 Element?" and decided to make a Misplaced Pages article called "Period 2 element" when he wrote "A period 2 element is an element that is in Period 2 of the periodic table" or some similar tautological silliness.--feline1 (talk) 08:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Enough. @Feline1: I did not insist that only one editor expressed that view. Replying on my talk page to User:DePiep, I wrote that "reading the two discussions as a whole, I find only 3 editors opposing your proposal, and only one supporting it". Nominator plus one supporter = 2.

I have now had enough of the relentless personal attacks from these two editors, who consistently misrepresent my explanations of the closure, and will ask for admin intervention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Which is a little rich, considering you started the personal attacks in the first place, and both recipients of them have already requested admin intervention regarding them!--feline1 (talk) 09:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, Feline1, the personal attacks come from you. The first interaction I had with you was on my talk page, where your first post accused me of "obtuse daftness". When I tried in good faith to explain Misplaced Pages procedure and the role of a closer and how I reached a decision by trying to implement long-standing principles about consensus-formation, your subsequent posts on my talk page called me "a cult member" and asked "With admins like these, who needs vandals".

In this move review, your personal attacks include: "Are you quite sure you're an admin? And not typing whilst drunk?", "cult-member who can only parrot cult-speak phrases!", "a complete mentalist". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

re BrownHairedGirl. You counted the votes wrong in two occasions. Pointing that out is not a "relentless personal attack", it is a citation of your own writing. Under : "The proposal was rejected on both pages", under : "3 out 4 editors who expressed a preference". A third quote I did not stress but is there : "That lone supporter" for the proposal (feline1; leaves out nom's support). Calling this a personal attack is polluting this discussion. You also discarded a serious contribution for reasons not to be found in RMCI (or in XfD area for that matter), namely !vote formatting requirements. That was pointed out too with a citation. If you read or feel to be "misrepresented" by this, then address the issue rationally not personally. Don't start throwing around accusations as an argument instead. I request that you withdraw this accusation here too. Earlier in the process, there were these accusations (unspecified, blanket, closed for follow up). That was part of the process too, and show behaviour not fitting. In your earlier contribution, above, you wrote "falsehood" and "dishonest" smears, unproven and still not withdrawn. It is worrying that I need to explain this to an admin, on the third (fourth...) page of the discussion. To be clear: discussion can not proceed useful based on such accusations. -DePiep (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@DePiep: What on earth do you hope to achieve by repeating a stream of falsehoods?

I did not "count the votes wrong". What has happened is that per WP:ADMINACCT, I had the took the time to explain my reasoning to you, and you are now playing disruptive wikilawyering games by taking words out of context, and repeatedly misrepresenting me in a series of deliberate falsehoods. In 8 yeras as an editor, and nearly 8 as an admin, I have never seen such a prolonged exercise in misrepresentation as yours.

Lie #1. You cite my reference to "that lone supporter" as evidence that I counted the votes wrong. I didn't. Only one editor supported the proposal. You made a proposal. One editor supported it. That's 2 people in favour: one proposer, one lone supporter.

Lie #2 You complain about my comment about 3 out of 4". What I wrote was "3 out 4 editors who expressed a preference rejected the nom's arguments". Your blatantly dishonest partial quote strips out the rest of the sentence, in order to misrepresent me as having omitted the nominator from my count.

Lie #3. You claim that I "discarded a serious contribution". Yet again, a blatant lie. What I wrote was that I attached "a little less weight to it". If it was "discarded", it would have had zero weight.

The situation is quite simple. You made a proposal. One editor supported it. 3 editors opposed it. All arguments were well-founded in policy.

That adds up to 3 editors opposed, and 2 in favour, one of whom chose not to express their preference in the conventional way, by bolding it. With 3 opposed, and a little less than 2 in favour, I count that as a consensus against.

You have repeatedly tried to misrepresent me by quoting my words out-of-context, and you have repeatedly attributed to them a meaning which is not supported when they are read in context. That is dishonest, timewasting, and disruptive.

The effect of your misconduct is deeply corrosive of editorial collaboration. It is important that admins are accountable for their actions, and take time to explain them. I have done so, at some length, but instead of finding myself in an honest discussion with someone who seeks to understand, I have found that my explanations have been used repeatedly abused by you in a prolonged exercise of deliberate misrepresentation.

If that is how admins are treated when they explain their actions, then the effect will be that admins are much less open in explaining their actions. The time wasted in repeatedly rebutting your series of malicious lies and misrepresentations is wholly disproportionate to the issues at stake, which are simply: a procedurally-flawed discussion with 3 against and 2 in favour, which you demand should be closed as if there was a consensus in favour of it. Enough. drama. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you quite sure you're an admin? And not typing whilst drunk? I've scarcely seen such a ranting stream of personal attacks and calumny. What do you seriously hope to achieve by abusing editors in this manner. You already admitted you have no knowledge of or interest in chemistry in any case, you seem to just be here to obstruct and troll.--feline1 (talk) 10:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Feline1, you still don't understand the role of a closer. It is utterly irrelevant whether I have any knowledge of chemistry. Any knowledge which a closing admin has of the topic should not be applied in closing the discussion. The closer's role is to weigh the contributions of those who participated in the discussion, not to draw conclusions based on any knowledge they may have of the topic. If the closer wants to impart their own knowledge, they should contribute to the discussion rather than closing it.

You are quite entitled to regard the consensus as right or as wrong, but the closer's job is to note that consensus. That's how Misplaced Pages works, and if you dislike the fact that consensus decision-making is how Misplaced Pages works, don't blame me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I am blaming you, first for your persistent personal attacks and pronouncements of bad faith on all and sundry, and secondly because you are clearly more interested in nit-picking bureaucracy rather than helping to make a administrative process work so that the content of the Misplaced Pages is improved. You've forgotten what we're all meant to be here for, and install are just indulging in a hobby of using this site as a battleground for your snarky nonsense. Unpleasant jobsworth behavior. What are you in real life, a traffic warden? --feline1 (talk) 11:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

There was an absence of community support for the initial proposition, and it is now abundantly clear that there is a lack of community support for revisiting the issue through this process. I really don't see anything to be gained by further participation in this discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) re BrowhHairedGirl. You wrote: "the proposal was rejected on both pages". That error was supported by your later writings, quoted. And again, here you are mixing up "wrong conclusions" with "lies", which turns whatever you write into a personal attack. If you want to discuss facts & findings, withdraw your personal attacks first. -DePiep (talk) 11:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

DePiep, there are 5 points above where I demonstrate how you are misrepresenting me. If you choose not to withdraw those misrepresentations, I will continue to regard them as deliberate lies, intended to mislead and disrupt the move review. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

feline1 - you need to stop it with the personal attacks, comments like "complete mentalist", "Are you quite sure you're an admin? And not typing whilst drunk?" and "What are you in real life, a traffic warden?" are unacceptable.

DePiep - you need to accept the BHG has a very different view to you and the whole point of this move review is to get outside views on that difference of opinion. Repeatedly making the same point, such as BHG counting votes wrong, is not helping this discussion one bit. You've made your point, now let it be.

BrownHairedGirl - I suggest you stop replying to every post made by DePiep. As I say to them you've made your point now and continuing this discussion is not helpful. I'm not sure I'd interpret your original comments as an accusation of deliberate dishonesty, rather than a comment on that being the end result, but can also see how they came across that way (bolding and calling it a falsehood didn't help) - especially to someone that hasn't seen your style before. I'd suggest you be a little more careful with your wording in future.

All three of you - continuing this threaded discussion will serve no purpose. You've all made your point and you should now all sit back, let others comments and let a neutral admin close. Continuing this threaded conversation could well be seen as disruptive. Dpmuk (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Dpmuk, the extent of your bias in favour of another admin is farcical. You're like a police superintendent who, on finding his officers have beaten the crap out of some prisoners, berates the prisoners for having collided with the officers' truncheons, whilst giving the officers a mild ticking off for having gotten blood on their nice clean uniforms.--feline1 (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding the period 1 element Move review. The thread is I think BrownHairedGirl needs a talk. Thank you. (time overlap and (edit conflict). Did not process posts 12:30 and 12:42) -DePiep (talk) 12:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse Closure The choices made by BrownHairedGirl were entirely within appropriate administrative discretion. In fact, the request(s) could have been closed without comment based on precedural errors alone, irrespective of who and how the errors were introduced. As BHG says, dismissal for malformatting is not a mere technicality: improperly formatted discussions impede consensus formation, since they introduce barriers making comments by contributors more difficult. Proper consensus formation requires due and appropriate notice to the community. Arguments over !vote-counting are mere wiki-lawyering, given that the fundamental basis for closure was sound. Since the proposal's basic problem was its format, I don't believe the closure is with prejudice: another discussion, properly opened at WP:RM, would be fine with me. However, I share with BrownHairedGirl a dislike for the wiki-lawyering present in this movie review request. Xoloz (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse close. There's no consensus for the move request at either WP:ELEMENTS talk page or on the period 1 element talk page. Both discussions were open 10 days, and had sufficient enough participation to determine consensus. In short, there's nothing wrong with the close made by BrownHairGirl. Hot Stop talk-contribs 00:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Common Gull (closed)

Memorial Medical Center and Hurricane Katrina (closed)

• Misplaced Pages move review monthly listings