Wikipedia talk:Move review/Archive 2016

Post-close comments

So, in Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2016_October#New_York_.28closed.29, User:Diego Moya posted a post-close comment. User:Oknazevad reverted, a little two-move revert war, then User:Salvidrim! (the admin MR closer) page protected.

As User:Diego Moya was replying to a statement made directly to him, he deserve the privilege of being able to reply. However, inside the closed discussion is not the place. Within closed discussions, typo corrections, link corrections, links to follow-up discussions are seen to happen, but to continue discussions post-close is too much.

I believe it is appropriate to make post-close replies outside, below, the collapse box formatting. This makes it clear that the close was made prior to further comments.

If the post-close reply is short and simple, and not demanding of further response, I think it is appropriate to simply post a comment below the archive box. If it is more than that, I would suggest posting post-close comments on the talk page (in this case: Wikipedia talk:Move review/Log/2016 October), and putting pointer to these comments below the archive box.

This sort of thing has been accepted/tolerated at DRV, in several instances. I think it should be, adhering to the following principles:

• A closed discussion should be preserved to reflect the discussion at the time of close
• The closing of a formal discussion is not intended to serve as a ban on continued discussion.
• Project related discussions, such as relating to move reviews, should remain in more or less one place, not fragmented on to user talk pages, or in isolated segments on article talk pages.

If this is not disagreed with, I suggest User:Salvidrim! unprotect the page, and put User:Diego Moya's post-close comment outside and below the collapsed archive box, or on the talk page.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I would be fine with placing my reply below the discussion instead of inside it. If further comments are made, then it could be continued at the related article's talk page. What I'm poised off is that I couldn't set straight a reply that misrepresented my opinion of the review, merely because of the timing of the close. I don't want the discussion to go archived for future reference with such misunderstanding of my position without being able to even point out that I still had something to clarify; that's why I made my WP:IAR edits. Diego (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

TBH I don't much care about the validity of post-close comments, I only protected because of the edit warring. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

And I only reverted because the standard is closed discussions are not supposed to be edited; part of the purpose of the closing templates is to make clear what discussion was examined by the closer to come to their conclusion, and adding things later muddles that. Below the close comments, while still missing the other point of a close (to provide a conclusion to the discussion), don't do that and are better, if still not perfect. oknazevad (talk) 00:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

well lets allow but discourage post close comments. I do them sometimes when I have the page sitting for a few hours and want to say something, but by the time I click edit, someone has closed the discussion. Having extra comments is pretty harmless, even if useless, and on the talk page may be better. Reverting escalates the comment into conflict. So please don't revert unless there is a real reason the comment should be removed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request

Add the following at the end of Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 October#New York .28closed.29, just below the ending tag, per discussion above:

Reply to Alanscottwalker's last comment in the closed discussion above: My position is not to endorse the close, nor it is to endorse that there's was no consensus about the result; that is your interpretation. My position would be equivalent to the 7th option ("don't relist, yet don't endorse either") at the Typical move review decision options. At no point does the WP:MR page states that "endorse" and "overturn" are the only possible positions that commentators may state, so it doesn't make our position to "do not endorse that this was a proper close" something out of process. Diego (talk) 10:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm posted this request here rather than at Wikipedia talk:Move review/Log/2016 October because it doesn't exist, and here is where the conversation has taken place. Diego (talk) 10:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Diego (talk) 10:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Reply

Reply to post close comment of Diego: Your post close comment reinforces that you are not here to uphold process but to rather go against process, as you have edit warred to insert a comment not in the closed discussion. You did not cast a !Vote with the words Do not relist, and then you misrepresnt with quotation marks statements that are not elsewhere in the instructions or your ivote, so your now recasting of your ivote is again out-of-process, and demonstrates disdain for process. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please continue your discussion elsewhere — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• What? What's the reason for not posting this comment on the page but posting his comment? I will wait until the page is unprotected to correct the record, but I do not understand the apparent favoritism you are showing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

  Because my request to modify the protected page was made after a consensus was developed at this talk page. This template is expected to be used only when the agreement to make a particular change has been discussed and agreed. I'm not opposed to include your comment there, together with a link to wherever we continue the discussion if that happens; but you should ask for the other editors opinions to do that before placing the edit request. Diego (talk) 14:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

So, your now answering for MSGJ? Really. Besides as this discussion is now open the request remains unanswered. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

MSGJ - What are you talking about disruptive? Per adminact you have not answered the question on an admin act that shows favoritism. Clearly it was not about a talk page consensus, or you would have said you would post it after you get consensus and you would have done it on the talk page, and as consensus is now present why are you not posting it? Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

If you don't mind, we could continue this conversation either at our talk pages or at Talk:New York#Requested move 19 July 2016. In that case, adding a link to the new place for this conversation at the end of the move review would be needed. And, given that your reply is in the line of wanting to guess on my behavior and intentions rather than on the decision by the closer, I think our talk pages are the most appropriate place. Diego (talk) 13:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

No. My reply is in direct response to yours and your evidently gross misuse of quotation marks and false claims to upholding process, while you violate process. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

FYI, those are quotes used for emphasis (i.e. "scare quotes" used "to signal that a term is being used in a non-standard sense"), not quotation of direct speech. I used them to mean that I was paraphrasing the 7th of the Typical move review decision options, that is put in contrast with the not-so-equivalent first option, which also results in a closed discussion without a move, but doesn't endorse the outcome - i.e. exactly the intent of my not-vote at the move review. Diego (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

So, your excuse, now, is that you were using the words you put in quotes in a non-standard fashion. That is ridiculous and makes no sense - in fact, such a practice is pretty much designed to make no sense (or perhaps to mislead). Thus, the record should be corrected.Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia:Move review is not protected, removing from fprot request queue. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

No. I did not post it here. I posted it at the talk page of the protected page. It was moved here by an admin. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)