User talk:Asukite
AIM-174 (Again)
[edit]Howdy, again, lol,
The MRV having been completed regarding "AIM-174B," I engaged with the MRV closer, here and he suggested I bring-up my issue with you, and seemed to imply that while he agrees with my contention (or at least the important part of it, from how I read it) that he's not sure what he can do for me.
So, to my point; My contention is that when you originally issued your finding of "no consensus" on the original RM, this should have immediately reverted us to "AIM-174." (This is the aspect that USER:ModernDayTrilobite seems to agree with me on, though I certainly do not want to put words in his mouth, so I'm tagging him here for transparency). The onus of further RM re-openings and MRV should have then immediately-shifted on to the executor of the undiscussed move. Thus invalidating further proceedings on my end.
Otherwise, this quite possibly is setting a concerning precedent of 'brute-forcing' undiscussed moves into acceptance.
All of that said… if you feel that you are unable to further assist, here, I will open a matter on the ANI. I would like to (and I will, in the future) make it abundantly clear that I am not accusing you or anyone else of bad faith. Simply a slight procedural hiccup that I did not catch at the time. At the very least, would you be willing to support my contention?
Thoughts? Suggestions? thanks :) MWFwiki (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- @MWFwiki, I can see both sides of the argument at question, one that we have a clear procedure at WP:RMUM, reflecting the WP:BRD procedure, which in turn refers to WP:BOLD and WP:CONSENSUS - there isn't an actual "policy" regarding undiscussed moves, just as noted at WP:BRD, it's all part of an optional process used to build consensus, which requires reading multiple pages, some of which are "policy", some "procedure" or "guidelines" and some optional "essays" - this is all to say, I can see the argument that we should follow this procedure and revert the move, but then we also have WP:TITLECHANGES, which is policy, stating
If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed.
, and even then, you can say you had a good argument, and nobody here can agree on what "a long time" is. - I apologize if I previously gave a narrow picture of the general means by which we process these requests - I'm still learning more here every day. Previously, I would have taken WP:RMUM and WP:BRD as being necessary and straightforward guidelines, but as with everything on this project there is a lot of subjectivity, and while that makes building consensus difficult, that is part of the challenge of this project. In this case, as with any, it all comes down to what the other editors think, and all I can definitively say in this case is that they did not agree.
- As to whether ANi is the right venue, I can't offer much as I have no experience there. I've seen it used to resolve contentious interpersonal issues and differences in editing philosophy, deviations from policy, among other things, and in many cases it can end up making matters worse, but if that's something you wish to pursue, that's your choice. Another option is always to try and put together an RfC on the topic to help build consensus, but that may be an even bigger challenge.
- I hope all this helps - my view on the "bigger picture" here can be a little chaotic due to the many conflicting views and practices of other editors, and as I have always been relatively indecisive, I have found closing discussions a suitable challenge as it requires less decisiveness on my own part. The most I could offer to an ANI thread at this point would amount to what I've already stated, and I don't think I would help it much either way. - good luck in any case. (and I will add to the ANI after reading it if I find anything constructive to say, of course!) ASUKITE 15:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 12 December 2024
[edit]- News and notes: Arbitrator election concludes
- Arbitration report: Palestine-Israel articles 5
- Disinformation report: Sex, power, and money revisited
- Op-ed: On the backrooms by Tamzin
- In the media: Like the BBC, often useful but not impartial
- Traffic report: Something Wicked for almost everybody
New pages patrol January 2025 Backlog drive
[edit]| January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol |  |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. | |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Mackinac Center for Public Policy on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)