Open main menu

07:28, 18 July 2019 IST [refresh]
Quellus letter Q.png

qedk


Thomas Green closeEdit

I usually don't follow up on closes, but the numbers on which you claim to have based your close here are at variance with the actual votes placed. You said the numbers were 4:2 in favor, and then you disminished the two oppose votes. The actual numbers were 3:3, with three clear oppose votes, objecting to the entire rationale for any move at all (and as such, there was no need for them to weigh in on the alternatives). Your conclusion just does not match the actual discussion. Agricolae (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey Agricolae, a requested move is a consensus discussion and not a voting system, so if participants voice preference for alternatives, it is always taken into account. For the actual requested move to "Thomas Green (...relationship...)" there was a consensus against, which I made a note of. Then I proceeded to check for any alternative consensus, which I did find, as there were 4 editors explicitly supporting it. And an opposer which did not make a note of it (but I assumed that as an opposition to all moves) while the other remaining opposer (excepting you, because you supported the alternate) stated "per opposers" which would mean that I as a closer, would assess his opinion based on other opposers, which as I already stated was that the consensus was against the first requested move, but a narrow consensus on the alternative "Thomas Green (died 1506)" and thus solidified my decision on the requested move. I did not dismiss any opposes, only assessed them as they stated it and also provided an explanation as I thought it was necessary. --qedk (tc) 12:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't need to be told how RfCs work, I need to be told how you counted 'preferences' on this specific one. There were not 4 participants in favor of the move. There just weren't. Roman Spinner was the nom (so that's 1), Necrothesp votted move (that would be 2), and McClog had originally proposed the move and was amenable to any of the move targets (though they didn't vote - that would be three); Agricolae (that would be 1), PBS (that's 2), and Johnbod 'voted' oppose (so that's 3); Operahat made a comment that since there were no other knights on existing pages this "needn't stop the page from remaining where it is" (not sure that this is an oppose, but it certainly isn't a move preference). That is 3:3:1 (or even 3:4). Who is your 4th participant in favor of the move? Of the opposers, PBS cited NATURALness as a reason to keep it where it was. Agricolae (me) argued repeatedly against the move, and Johnbod just said 'as per opposers' (both other opposers said it shouldn't be moved).
I can't get inside your head, but if you think when I said 'if it absolutely had to be moved these are better targets than the one proposed' that this somehow made me a supporter of the move, you failed to take into account both the contingent way it was expressed and everything else I said in the discussion. So I ask you again, who were your four participants in favor of the new target, and who did you view as opposers? Agricolae (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I counted your preference in for "Thomas Green (d. 1506)" as an alternative. The 4th participant I considered is you. And you do not need to be hostile, I was only trying to explain my viewpoint to you with proper explanations, not telling you how requested moves work. I also counted in Necrothesp's "Move" comment in as an inherent opposition to the first proposed requested move and the group of "opposers" the last oppose is referring to as it was inherently opposing the primary RM. Again to reiterate, there were atleast 2 specifically opposing any moves (you and PBS) but you cited a possibility to the alternate title and I took it on that merit, since there were atleast 3 other editors supporting that alternate. Hope that explains it. --qedk (tc) 17:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I was not intended to be hostile, but it seems like your entire close was based on a complete mischaracterization of my own position. Anyhow, I take it you have no intention of reconsidering? Agricolae (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Is it mischaracterization to consider your own words to assess consensus? Then, I have to agree that I did mischaracterize you. From how I am seeing it, there is no reason to reconsider, I only posted the consensus I saw. Apologies to have caused a disagreement at all. --qedk (tc) 18:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
It is a mischaracterization if you ignore things like, "That leaves us replacing a perfectly valid disambiguation with one that is less elegant", and "It is obviously possible to find a different name, but it is unnecessary as the existing name is consistent with guidelines", or "neither the policy on honorifics nor that on page names dictate such a change", or for that matter, the qualification that preceded the suggested alternatives. "If, for some reason, this [Sir Thomas Green] is deemed unacceptable . . .". None of this suggests I wanted the page moved. Just to be clear, I opposed moving the page not only in my oppose vote, but on several other occasions in the discussion. My willingness to participate in the discussion of what to do 'if it had to be moved' should in no way have been interpreted as favoring a move. Agricolae (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
It is not if you explicity state it as a possible alternative right? My job was to assess consensus for that one particular discussion, which I tried to fulfil with my best capacity. I do know that you were against the page move primarily. But given the fact that you did voice an opinion to state an alternate, I took it on that merit, and what I am trying to say is that, your opinion is not mutually exclusive. I have to see all sides of a statement, and to reiterate, since there were atleast 3 more editors supporting the alternate, I took your opinion on its corresponding merit. Hope that clears it up. --qedk (tc) 19:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I put it forward as an alternative if there had to be a move. There didn't have to be a move. Agricolae (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Don't pick an alternate and revoke your opinion because you did not expect it to change the outcome you primarily wanted. If you did not want any move, say you don't want any move. You cannot say, here's my secondary option and have me automatically forget you said it because you had a primary opinion as well. You don't get to choose which opinion is played when, only that your opinion exists as a level of preference. --qedk (tc) 20:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I did say I didn't want a move: that is what oppose means. I didn't give a secondary preference, I gave an explicit conditional, and then argued repeatedly (some would say ad nauseum) that the conditional wasn't fulfilled. I am not asking you to forget what I said, I am asking you to read what I said rather than lifting it out of context and forcing it into your own false construct. Anyhow, this has clearly ceased to be a productive exchange. Agricolae (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
There was absolutely no false construct, you are justifying your rationale post hoc because you did not like the outcome. I'm going to say what I said before, either state your viewpoint how you want it accurately, or be satisfied with the outcome. In fact, your only point of contention is that I took your Oppose statement, which included alternative viewpoints, on the merit of your alternative viewpoint and I am sure if a contention was made then and you would have a POV towards a move, you would argue this. So, no, just to reiterate, "you do not get to choose which opinion is played when, only that your opinion exists as a level of preference". And, fwiw, if you want me or anyone else to discount something you stated, don't state it. It's literally as simple as that. --qedk (tc) 17:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
And I will state what I stated before - read what I said, not what you want me to have said. I opposed a move, and I expressed an opinion on the relative suitability of targets (only) were a move to prove necessary. That in no way negates my opposition to a move, and it is ridiculous for you to now argue that I am changing what I said because I didn't like the outcome, while at the same time counting me as in favor of the outcome. You talk about me wanting you to discount what I said, but that isn't it at all. I want you to not discount what I said. I want you to not discount my explicit !vote not to move. I want you not to discount the four other times in the discussion I indicated that the current page name was best, that there was no basis for a move. I want you not to discount when I said that my opinion on the relative suitability of potential targets applied only if the page had to be moved. I want you not to discount that I proceeded to argue for the next week and a half that the page did not need to be moved, thereby rendering whatever should happen if it needed to be moved nugatory. And I want you not to discount that I expressed my opinion on potential targets at the same time I explicitly !voted oppose, not just comment, indicating I did not think a move was called for in spite of there being better targets than the one proposed. I want you not to discount, that I never revoked this !oppose in favor of one of the new targets, in spite of plenty of opportunities to do so, but continued to argue against a move. I want you not to discount any of this, but that is exactly what you are doing. You say if I didn't mean it don't state it, well I did state that my !vote was oppose. I did state four other times that the page shouldn't be moved. I did state that there was a specific condition under which my view on potential targets applied, and I did state repeatedly, that that specific condition (the page staying where it was being unacceptable) was not met. You are ignoring all of that. Someone's position cannot accurately be ascertained by cherry-picking half-a-sentence out of context, you actually have to read the entire sentence (and maybe more). Agricolae (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I think it's fair to say that neither of us will acquiesce to the other's viewpoint, and fwiw I hope the MRV goes in your favour so that we can put this behind us. And again, apologies for any inconvenience. --qedk (tc) 04:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Request for ClerkEdit

Idk what is really going on here, but I'd appreciate your expertise on this case request. –MJLTalk 18:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Looks like there's a lot of innards involved, give me an hour or two, I will be there pronto. --qedk (tc) 19:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good! :D –MJLTalk 19:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 Done Ducks are in season, it seems. --qedk (tc) 21:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "QEDK".