Wikipedia:Move review

Administrator instructions

Move review is a process to formally discuss and evaluate a contested close of Wikipedia page move discussions, including requested moves (RM), categories for discussion discussions (CfD), and redirects for discussion discussions (RfD), to determine if the close was reasonable, or whether it was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines.

Prior to submitting a review of a page move's close, please attempt to resolve any issues on the closer's talk page. See step one below.

While the page move close is under review, any involved editor is free to revert any undiscussed moves of a nominated page without those actions being considered a violation of Wikipedia:No wheel warring.

What this process is notEdit

This review process should be focused on the move discussion and the subsequent results of the move discussion, not on the person who closed the discussion. If you have ongoing concerns about a closer, please consult with the closer or post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Move review requests which cast aspersions or otherwise attack other editors may be speedily closed.

Do not request a move review if someone has boldly moved a page and you disagree. Instead, attempt to discuss it with the editor, and if the matter continues to be unresolved, start a formal WP:RM discussion on the article's talk page.

Do not request a move review simply because you disagree with the outcome of a page move discussion. While the comments in the move discussion may be discussed in order to assess the rough consensus of a close, this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion.

Disagreements with Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions (WP:RMCI), WP:Article titles, the Manual of Style, a naming convention or the community norm of consensus should be raised at the appropriate corresponding talk page.

CfDs[1] and RfDs can only be reviewed here if the relevant discussion was limited in scope to renaming; CfDs or RfDs[2] involving deletion should be reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review.


Initiating move reviewsEdit

Editors desiring to initiate a move review should follow the steps listed below. In the reason parameter, editors should limit their requests to one or both of the following reasons:

  • [Closer] did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because [explain rationale here] in closing this requested move discussion.
  • [Closer] was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion: [identify information here] and the discussion should be reopened and relisted.

Editors initiating a move review discussion should be familiar with the closing instructions provided in WP:RMCI.

Steps to list a new review requestEdit


Before requesting a move review: please attempt to discuss the matter with the closer of the page move discussion on the closer's talk page. Move review is a process that takes several days, sometimes weeks, to close. On the closer's talk page, you can probably resolve the matter much more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full, formal move review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, and you decide to request a review of the closure, please note in the review that you did first try discussing the matter with the closer.


Follow this link to this month's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the contested move page, rm_page with the name of the move discussion page if needed, rm_section if needed, closer and closer_section with the post-move discussion information, and reason with the reason why the page move should be reviewed. For example:

Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

{{subst:move review list
|rm_page= <!--Not needed if the move discussion is on the talk page of the page-->
|rm_section= <!--Name of the section with the move request-->
|closer= <!--User name of editor who closed the move request-->
|closer_section= <!--Name of the section of closer's talk page where discussion took place-->
}}  ~~~~

If either the |closer= or |closer_section= parameter is omitted, the result will include "No discussion on closer's talk page". When

  • |closer= < closer's username > and
  • |closer_section= < section header on closer's talk page where there was discussion about the close >

are correctly filled in, the result will include a "Discussion with closer" link to that discussion.

If the |closer_section= link is to the section on the closer's talk page where the closer has only been notified of Move review (see step 3) and the closer has not actually discussed their close with another editor on their talk page, the result will include a "No discussion on closer's talk page" link to the Move review notice.


If you have not done so already, inform the closer of the Move review discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:move review note|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~

Leave notice of the move review in the same section as, but outside of and above the closed original move discussion. Use the following template: {{move review talk|date=2 August 2021}}. Do not tag the article.


If the current month discussions are not already included in the discussion section below. Add the new log page to the top of the active discussions section.

{{Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 August}}

The discussion with closer and notices required above are sufficient notification; you are not required to individually notify participants in the prior move discussion of the move review. However, if you individually notify any of them, you must individually notify all of them by posting a message about the move review on each participant's respective user talk page.


Commenting in a move reviewEdit

In general, commenters should prefix their comments with either Endorse or Overturn (optionally stating an alternative close) followed by their reasoning. Generally, the rationale should be an analysis of whether the closer properly followed Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, whether it was within administrator discretion and reasonably interpreted consensus in the discussion, while keeping in mind the spirit of Wikipedia policy, precedent and project goal. Commenters should be familiar with WP:RMCI, which sets forth community norms for closers of page move discussions.

If the close is considered premature because of on-going discussion or if significant relevant information was not considered during the discussion, commenters should suggest Relist followed by their rationale.

Commenters should identify whether or not they were involved or uninvolved in the RM discussion under review.

The closer of the page move under discussion should feel free to provide additional rationale as to why they closed the RM in the manner they did and why they believe the close followed the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI.

Remember that move review is not an opportunity to rehash, expand upon or first offer your opinion on the proper title of the page in question – move review is not a do-over of the WP:RM discussion but is an opportunity to correct errors in the closing process (in the absence of significant new information). Thus, the action specified should be the editor's analysis of whether the close of the discussion was reasonable or unreasonable based on the debate and applicable policy and guidelines. Providing evidence such as page views, ghits, ngrams, challenging sourcing and naming conventions, etc. to defend a specific title choice is not within the purview of a move review. Evidence should be limited to demonstrating that the RM closer did or did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI in closing the page move discussion.

Closing reviewsEdit

A nominated page should remain on move review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists to either endorse the close or overturn the close. If that consensus is to Overturn Close, the administrator should take the appropriate actions to revert any title changes resulting from the RM close. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at Wikipedia:Requested moves, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, or Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. If the consensus is to Endorse Close, no further action is required on the article title. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the move review, then in most cases this has the same effect as Endorse Close and no action is required on the article title. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; administrators may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. Move review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest MRV log page, if the closing administrator thinks that a different consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.

Use {{subst:move review top}} and {{subst:move review bottom}} to close such discussions.

Also, add a result to the {{move review talk}} template on the talk page where the original discussion took place, e.g. {{move review talk|date=April 24 2015|result=Closure endorsed}}.

Typical move review decision optionsEdit

The following set of options represent the typical results of a move review decision, although complex page move discussions involving multiple title changes may require a combination of these options based on the specific details of the RM and MRV discussions.

MRV closer's decision RM closer's decision Move review closed as Status of RM after MRV close
1. Endorse Close Not Moved No Action Required Closed
2. Endorse Close Move to new title No Action Required Closed
3. Overturn Close Not Moved Option 1: (If RM consensus is unclear or significantly divided) Reopen and relist RM Open
Option 2: (If Consensus to move to a new title is clear) Move title to new title and close RM Closed
4. Overturn Close Move to new title Move title back to pre-RM title, reopen and relist RM if appropriate Open
5. Relist Not Moved Reopen and relist RM Open
6. Relist Move to new title Move title to pre-RM title and reopen and relist RM Open



  1. ^ Those that involve renames (Template:Cfr), for all other types of CFDs use deletion review.
  2. ^ Generally for those that don't involve any proposed or suggested deletion, where only the redirect's target was being discussed or if the redirect should be a disambiguation page, for other (even those that were retargeted where deletion was proposed or considered) use deletion review.

Active discussionsEdit

2021 AugustEdit

2021 JulyEdit

Chow Hang TungEdit

Chow Hang Tung (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

no legitimate reasons to move. s/he did not care at all to verify the proponents' claims to move. s/he was given the opportunity to defend the decision to move, yet s/he cannot answer challenges.--RZuo (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Endorse Very reasonable close; to go against the majority of users and the reliable sources cited, the Opposers would have needed much better policy-based arguments for why the previous title is not only a defensible title per the relevant policies, but also why it's better than the proposed title. IffyChat -- 09:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

2021 JuneEdit

Vesta (mythology) (closed)Edit

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Vesta (mythology) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

I believe that buidhe unilaterally closed a controversial discussion, taking an admin role despite not being vetted for adminship (as they have been documented as doing numerous times in the past). Even if it was intended to be unbiased, it creates the impression of bias. Now, I personally believe there was a consensus for support at this time, but even if there wasn't, this is not the right case for a NAC. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Endorse (uninvolved): While the closing instructions discourage NAC for controversial discussions, mostly that is to avoid them ending up here rather than a reason to automatically overturn them. Looking at the discussion the opposes had some strong arguments against any page being the primary topic. A "no consensus" close seem well within closer's discretion. PaleAqua (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse <uninvolved> . First, nothing wrong with a NAC here. “All closures of requested moves are subject to being taken to review at WP:Move review (WP:MR), but the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is never sufficient reason to reverse a closure.” See WP:RMNAC. Secondly, it’s a good close. Oppose had a strong policy based basis: that there was no primary topic by usage or historical significance. Support merely claimed PT by historical significance based on other topics being named after it which isn’t even a criteria. Closer is highly experienced and read consensus exactly right. Bravo! 👏🏼 —В²C 03:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse, good close, and Buide is gaining admin-worthy respect for their discretionary closing calls. I have noticed Buide has for some time been quite adventurous even courageous in their closes, and this one is far from the most extreme. “No consensus” is always easy to defend. The problem is this being a redlink. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse (involved), sigh, the consensus didn't go the way I wished but that doesn't mean Buidhe's close was improper - it was not. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse. An excellent close by Buidhe, evaluating the arguments presented through the lens of policy and the evidence presented, rather than just doing a headcount. And NAC is fine for an experienced RM expert such as Buidhe, if it's properly reasoned. This is the sort of thing on which an RFA bid might be based.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse (involved) per В²C, while I do agree being named after should be a significant factor it was clear from the consensus that everyone agreed that it wasn't primary by usage and the opposers made reasonable arguments that it wasn't primary by long-term significance therefore finding "no consensus" is reasonable in this case. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Konchem Ishtam Konchem Kashtam (closed)Edit

  • Konchem Ishtam Konchem KashtamWP:SNOW closed summarily as endorsed. @Neel.arunabh: is WP:TROUTed for filing a move review without discussing with the closer, which is mandatory. We don't have that many rules, guys. Even without this egregious error, the move review was destined to fail for many reasons that are unnecessary to list here (and were accurately listed below - thanks everyone). A non-admin probably shouldn't be closing move reviews, but this one is ridiculous. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 17:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Konchem Ishtam Konchem Kashtam (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM) (No discussion with closer)

Currently, only DaxServer and I have participated in the discussion. Just two participants apart from the nom are not enough to close an RM. We need at least a few more participants to fulfill a discussion. Neel.arunabh (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Neel.arunabh I don't see any sockpuppet investigations or discussions on @No such user's talk page. Could you point to that discussion archive? -- DaxServer (talk) 17:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
In case someone is wondering why I asked for SPI, here is the diff Special:Diff/1027565487 -- DaxServer (talk) 07:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse / Speedy close. User:Neel.arunabh: Please read the instructions. A discussion with the closer is mandatory, not optional. Informing them that you opened the MR already is not a "discussion." (Note that on the merits, this is an obvious endorse anyway, as closer noted, this should have just been a technical request to revert the undiscussed move made by Neel.arunabh . So the RM was really a RM to gain consensus for Neel.arunabh's preferred spelling - even if this discussion had no consensus, it still would have been moved back, so complaining about not enough turnout to gain consensus only makes the close stronger, not weaker. Nominator's original nomination, showing a massive Google search edge for the original spelling, was never really contested.) SnowFire (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment (original nominator) Though I could have reverted the move again, back to its long-standing title, I opened an RM to prevent move warring. As SnowFire noted, the onus to seek consensus for their preferred spelling was on Neel.arunabh, which they could not garner in the RM. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse. <uninvolved> Agree that this nomination is out of process. Just there being three participants in an RM survey is enough to close an RM (specially one that is a month old and never relisted), in this case with an obvious consensus to move the page back to its original title before the move war began. Disagree that the RM was unnecessary, because of the move war and obvious controversy over the spelling. A technical request would have been challenged and an RM would have ensued anyway. In any case, No such user's closure was certainly in line with the closing instructions. Since the MRV notice was given the closer on the 8th of June, and the single post by the nom of this MRV was actually made on the 11th of June, the "Discussion with closer" above has been altered, again, to reflect no actual discussion with the closer before opening this MRV. Agree that this review should be endorsed and closed in the present moment! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 00:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Note Neel.arunabh attempted to close and "resubmit" this discussion [1]. I have reverted it. -- Calidum 16:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
They did it a second time as well [2] -- Calidum 16:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Wonder what the nom was thinking? Did they think that would result in a different outcome? I think this should be reverted back to this edit, which would close this with an automatic endorsement of the RM closure... and let that be an end to it! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 22:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse and speedy SNOW close <uninvolved> per all of the above. All I can add is unsolicited advice to some of those involved in this debacle:
    1. Unless you're sure a given title change has consensus support, don't change the title without going through RM.
    2. When a request for a revert of an undiscussed move is made, just revert it. Let the editor who originally moved the article produce an argument for the move in a formal RM, if they have one. Don't create an RM for them, without an argument.
    3. If you change a title despite #1, and the move ends up being challenged in an RM like this one was despite #2, make a solid persuasive argument based on policy and facts, that the title you favor meets policy better, if you have one. If you don't, back off. The title should not be changed if you don't have a good strong argument.
    4. Referring to the spelling of a topic on a poster image you can't produce is not a strong argument.
    5. A strong argument shows that the title you favor is more commonly used in reliable sources.
    6. When it has been recognized that both spellings in question are used in reliable sources, producing examples of the one you happen to favor being used is not compelling evidence favoring that one. Obviously such examples exist. Producing them does not indicate either is more commonly used.
    --В²C 22:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

California v. Murray (closed)Edit

  • California v. MurrayOverturned to move. There is a consensus in this MRV that, as well as there being a consensus to move overall, the closer could have closed with a move to "People v. Murray", at least after Natg's discussion with them at their talk page (it may have been unclear at the time of closing whether Natg still supported the original proposal as well as the "(2011)" variant, but this was subsequently clarified by the said discussion).  — Amakuru (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
California v. Murray (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Four of the five participants, Natg 19 (nom),, TJRC, and Born2cycle (yours truly), all supported the proposed move. The fifth participant supported a more descriptive alternative, and the nom agreed to that too (and nom was the one protesting closer’s finding of no consensus on their talk page). In closing statement closer inexplicably cites “a couple of alternative titles” (there was only one alternative), and doubles-down on their decision on their talk page (“there was not a consensus of one over another”). Really? 4/5 supported one, 2/5 supported the alternative (one, the nom, was good with either). No consensus? В²C 05:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the cleanest approach would be to just start a fresh RM. It got kind of derailed with the proposed alteration of the new name, and it's unclear what some editors' thought would be after the application of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC was raised, making this more than a simple ambiguation issue.
Actually, I'm not convinced that articles on trials should be named in the format State-name v. Person-name. The Foo v. Bar form is usually used for judicial opinions, usually but not always on an appellate level (including a jurisdiction's top court, usually called the supreme court). I think, in general, articles on trials should be named along the lines of (in this case) Trial of Conrad Murray. This might be worth a more general discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law before opening the RM. TJRC (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Whose opinion is unclear? I thought all four of five clearly favored the proposed title. —В²C 21:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
It's unclear what the consensus is for the target name. The proponent Natg 19 initially suggested People v. Murray, but later switched to People v. Murray (2011), which was the position of Phillip Samuel. I supported the originally-suggested name, as did you and an IP editor. So the final nose-count seems to be three editors (, TJRC, Born2cycle) supporting a move to People v. Murray; and two editors (Natg 19 and Phillip Samuel) supporting a move to People v. Murray (2011).
Yes, the discussion reflects a consensus that it be moved; no, the discussion does not reflect a consensus where it should be moved to. I do note that both Natg 19's and Phillip Samuel's positions in preference for People v. Murray (2011) were stated prior to my position that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC suggested using the unadorned name, so maybe we want to weight those less; but the reality is that no consensus was articulated for the target.
And I point out again: an even better title would be Trial of Conrad Murray, where it used to reside as a result of a 2011 RM, as shown on the talk page at Talk:California v. Murray#Requested move 18 October 2011. That's where the article resided until it was moved, apparently without prior discussion or consensus (I can't find it, anyway) to its present home at California v. Murray. So, yeah, definitely no consensus on where to move the article; only that it be moved. TJRC (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn to moved. (Uninvolved). Consensus to move it to People v. Murray as originally proposed is self-evident. -- Calidum 06:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. As I discuss in my reply above, although there was a consensus expressed that the page be moved, there is no consensus on where it be moved to, among People v. Murray and People v. Murray (2011) and, even better, its prior title Trial of Conrad Murray,from which it was moved without an RM discussion. Cleanest approach would be to start a new RM considering each of these dispositions. TJRC (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
    • TJRC, I’ll grant you that there are two possible interpretations of Natg_19’s ambiguous “I support this rename [to People v. Murray (2011)] to avoid confusion” comment: it could mean “I also support …” or it could mean “I instead support …”. Since this was the nom commenting and they never explicitly rescinded their implied support for their own proposal I assumed also, but I’ll allow that assuming instead is not totally unreasonable. So at the time of the close there is no blatant error. However, once this particular editor went to the closer’s talk page and asked them to reconsider their decision, stating their opinion was that there was consensus for their originally-proposed unadorned People v. Murray title, this clarified their own continued support for their originally-proposed title. Here the closer responds, doubling-down on their “no consensus” finding based on the instead interpretation despite this editor’s very action on the closer’s talk page clearly demonstrating that also was the correct interpretation. The closer then continues, demonstrating their muddled thinking about this close, by stating “No problem in proposing a move to what you see as the consensus outcome” as if there could be any question about “what you see as the consensus outcome”, not to mention it’s identical to the one proposed in the RM they just closed as “no consensus”. In other words, immediately upon reading Natg_19’s request to reconsider the close on their talk page, the closer should have realized their also-instead misinterpretation in their consensus assessment, and reversed accordingly. But they didn’t, which is why we are here. —В²C 10:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn <uninvolved> and move to the originally proposed title, because there does appear to be a consensus in the move request for that action. Apologies to the closer of the RM; this does seem to be a misreading possibly due to the additional title suggestions that somewhat muddied the water, and the nom's statement that they supported the "2011" qualifier "to avoid confusion". All that aside, the originally proposed title was strongly supported by three editors, B2C, TJRC and the IP, as well as the community consensus from the guideline cited, so People v. Murray is where this article should be titled. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 00:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn. The close was not reasonable. I find the close to be disjointed, as the finding of "no consensus" in no way follows from "there are a couple of alternative targets". Looking at the RM comments, there appears to be consensus for the proposal to move to "People v. Murray". The difference between "People v. Murray" and "People v. Murray (2011)" is insubstantial. It would only have been reasonable to construe the !vote for "People v. Murray (2011)" as supporting "People v. Murray" as well, because the !voter for the "X (year)" title could not have reasonably argued that the proposed target is not incrementally better. However even if that vote had been counted as contra- it would have been more reasonable to find a consensus to move. So there is ample reason why the "no consensus" finding is wrong. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

José Diego Álvarez (closed)Edit

  • José Diego ÁlvarezWP:SNOW Overturned to moved. Since the discussion with the closer began, ten days after the RM was closed, it has become clear that the landscape has changed. In particular, Necrothesp, who supported the proposal to move to a variant involving a birth year, informed the community at Ceyockey's talk page that they would be happy with the proposed move. And that they would have !voted to support that proposal if pinged. It is therefore, per the comments below and there, now largely uncontroversial that the RM had a strong consensus to move and I see little value in dragging this out further. Note that the decision does not imply that Ceyockey made the "wrong" decision as the RM closer, as the decision to re-close is based largely on information gained since the close. Furthermore, Ceyockey has also been largely off-wiki in the past few days anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
José Diego Álvarez (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)
NOTE: I was uninvolved in the original discussion and am personally ambivalent about the outcome. My concern is that consensus of the involved was misread. The closer found consensus to move but closed as "no consensus" nevertheless because they felt there was "no consensus on what the target should be". This is a misreading of the consensus, since all three supporting the move also support the originally proposed new title. From the original discussion it was clear at least two of the three supported that title, and subsequent discussion on the closer's talk page verified it was all three. Despite a polite request to reconsider their discussion, closer characterized this as

I am finding people coming and attempting to relitigate cases on my talk page. Asking me "reconsider this close - you are obviously wrong" is not a way to start a conversation and I have no interest in re-litigating. People should not avoid taking things to Move Review if they feel it was closed improperly. It is a truism here that anyone who disagrees with an outcome will immediately turn to the closer and ask to reconsider. This suggests the closer did not think at all about the closing. That is an incorrect assumption.

I have a number of concerns about some of the assertions stated in this quotation, but the focus here should be on whether "no consensus" was an accurate reading of consensus in this one particular RM, and it's quite apparent the closer is not willing to reconsider. В²C 19:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse From what I can see, there was two supports (one of which was the proposer) and one oppose for the proposed move, plus two supports and one oppose for an alternative proposal (the oppose of the original move can also probably be deemed to be in opposition to this given they opposed a move, meaning it was really 2–2 on the alternative). The assumption here seems to be that the editor who proposed the alternative also supported the original proposal, but this doesn't appear to be the case from what I can see. As such, I think this is a no consensus outcome. Number 57 21:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    • @Number 57: Please check the signatures of all comments for duplicates. Only GiantSnowman opposed, and expressed concern about other Spanish players with same name. Ortizesp (nom), Necrothesp, and Andrewa all supported the move as proposed (though Necrothesp’s support was not clear until the post-close discussion on the closer’s talk page). In addition, Necrothesp proposed an alternative which Ortizesp also supported, but Andrewa opposed. So the original proposal had the most support, exactly as much as consensus for the move which the closer did find. Also, please read the discussion on the closer’s talk page where all this was clarified. No one is faulting the closer (nor you) for not recognizing Necrothesp’s support for the original proposal, but once it was verified it seems silly to go through another RM. So I was hoping the closer would reverse. But they didn’t, unfortunately, so we’re here. —-В²C 22:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Agree that the no consensus close was valid at the time. But it was perhaps a line call owing to the two oppose !votes having unclear intent and dubious rationale, and as the intent has now been clarified it's a new ball game. IMO MR is not the best place to be discussing this, but now that we are here let us make the most of it. Andrewa (talk) 04:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, I will change to Endorse close but move. The discussion was closed correctly, but it has since become apparent that one of the editors who had not indicated so involved supported the proposed move so in the spirit of NOTBURO, it should be moved without another RM being required. @Born2cycle: If you're wondering why I didn't respond, it's because pings don't work if you don't sign in the same edit. You added the ping after signing. Number 57 19:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn to Move to José Diego (footballer). But that's about all I agree with in the request above. I was involved in the RM and in subsequent discussion. The reading of no consensus was fair enough given the two !votes that were in glorious hindsight unclear, but which have since been cleared up. The reluctance of the closer to reclose is IMO largely if not entirely due to the unnecessary attempts to blame them for getting it wrong. Although I was the one to first mention MR I think, I'm disappointed that we ended up here. But better than here at least. We already had not just consensus but unanimous agreement on the closer's talk page. So I think we were getting there. But now we are here, let us follow the process. Andrewa (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn to Move to José Diego (footballer).--Ortizesp (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn to Move to José Diego (footballer). The assumption here seems to be that the editor who proposed the alternative also supported the original proposal, but this doesn't appear to be the case from what I can see. On the contrary, that was me and it most certainly is the case. There were concerns that too many footballers had these names, but as other editors don't seem to be worried about that then neither am I. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn to Move to José Diego (footballer). I’m the nom here at this MR but was uninvolved in the original RM; clarifying my preferred resolution. I thought it was clear enough in that original RM discussion, but is certainly undoubtedly clear now, that consensus is to move to the originally proposed title, José Diego (footballer). —В²C 19:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2021 storming of the United States Capitol (closed)Edit

  • 2021 storming of the United States Capitol – In this discussion, the community considers the close of a RM concerning the incident in 2021 when some people entered the US capitol. Like everything to do with US politics the matter is incredibly contentious and the community is very divided on what the correct title should be. During this discussion, it emerges that the person who closed the discussion had previously !voted "strong opppose" on a similar proposal on 6th January this year, and was thus involved. In the discussion below, it is contended that this issue should be disregarded because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. But WP:INVOLVED is policy: A "widely-expected standard that all editors should normally follow". It is not to be dismissed as mere pettifogging bureaucracy. This goes to the heart of how Wikipedians make decisions. We must have confidence in our decision-making process. The subject decision is overturned by the community, and may be relisted or reopened by any editor.—S Marshall T/C 23:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
2021 storming of the United States Capitol (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

The proposal was to move the article to January 6 United States Capitol attack. This was the 13th RM. The closer determined that consensus was clearly against the proposal, but managed to find a consensus for "attack" over "storming". In fact, the title the closer proposes to move the page to was proposed and rejected at Talk:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol/Archive_14#Requested_move_4_February_2021. Given the highly contentious nature of this topic, an RM closed on 12 February should not be overturned by a reading of a discussion about a different proposal. (Note that while the RM is closed, the page has yet to be moved at the time of this filing, since the closer is not an admin.) Srnec (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Overturn close and leave it where it is. There is very clearly no consensus for the proposed move, and also per the previous discussion no consensus for what the closer claimed was the consensus here. I can't see it. The current title is really OK until we find a consensus for an alternative. If someone thinks they see the alternative that will work, a proposal for that should be made explicitly. Dicklyon (talk) 04:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    There simply isn't going to be a proposal that every editor will be able to agree with. In the most recent discussion, there is greater weight of support for "2021 United States Capital attack" than both the proposed title and the current title. Another move discussion is a possibility as outlined in the close comments. It simply isn't feasible to wait for everybody to agree on an alternative title while the status quo remains, when other alternatives have more weight. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    And INVOLVED. I hadn't realized the closer was an active editor on the page and was on record with move opinions already. He was ineligible to close, so a rollback and wait for an uninvolved admin is clearly required. Dicklyon (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse per Wugapodes's excellent summary below Feb 4 was only weeks after the event occurred -- recent discussion exhibits consensus that "storming" is no longer a COMMONNAME while "attack" is. At the same time, many people objected to changing from "2021" to "Jan 6"; Do we really want to start all over with yet another RM for a change that has clear consensus, or can we just agree to "walk and chew gum at the same time" like WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY might suggest? Feoffer (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Per Paine Ellsworth, "Thought a lot about this one, and editor Wugapodes below said it most elegantly. Feoffer (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The closer determined that consensus was clearly against the proposal, but managed to find a consensus for "attack" over "storming". The balance of the discussion's participants was largely against the "January 6" element of the proposed title, rather than "attack". There was more support for "attack" than the status quo "storming", so that was the consensus from the discussion, however limited. There was significant support for "riot", but an insufficient number of participants evaluated this as it was not part of the initial proposal. "2021 United States Capitol attack" may not be the final title, but it has more support in the discussion than "2021 storming of the United States Capitol". Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse move, as "attack" is more neutral than "storming", an inflated self-description by some rioters. I commented in the discussion proposing that "attack on the United States Capitol" would be clearer, but basically "2021 United States Capitol attack" or equivalent has my support. . dave souza, talk 12:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    Move review is for evaluating whether or not a close followed consensus; it is not an appropriate place to continue litigating the merits or lack thereof of a RM. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 17:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn I don't see strong consensus for changing "storming" to "attack". Of the voters that expressed a preference for a term, an equal number of !voters (14 by my count) each expressed a preference for "attack" and "storm", with riot a distant 3rd at 7 !votes. There were an additional three !votes that opposed "storm" without offering a preference, but that doesn't show a strong consensus to move away from "storm" in my opinion. As to the date, by my count 19 supported the "2021" and 15 supported "January 6". Therefore, I don't see a clear consensus to move away from "2021 storming of the United States Capitol". I will admit that the discussion was a bit of a mess, so I'd like to see another move request proposing "2021 United States Capitol attack". --Ahecht (TALK
    ) 12:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse (disclosure: I !voted in the discussion). The closer of this discussion did well to sift through all the oppose votes, which when viewed solely on a numerical basis make it look like there's no consensus to move. There actually was a consensus that 2021 > January 6, and that attack, while not perfect, is better than storming. Ahecht's "counting of votes" ignores the fact that the editors favoring a move away from storm were clearly based in guidelines to do so - "storming" is nowhere near the common name, and while there's an argument that maybe "riot" is just as common as attack, it's more common than "storming" which is beat out by a plethora of other words. Another move discussion is not required - it is completely possible for a move discussion to close with a consensus for a title that isn't the one originally proposed in the request - that's the beauty of collaborative, real-time editing. This is clearly a discussion that formed a clear consensus that a new title is better than (not perfect) the old one. Obviously no prejudice against people crafting further move requests to another new title if they feel there's an even better one. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm not swayed by those claiming involvement just because someone's edited a page, nor because they !voted in a prior discussion on the talk page. Nor do content contributions mean an editor is necessarily involved when the subject is the title of the page - especially when multiple months have passed since those discussions/involvement and a lot has changed. The other aspect of the overturn comments still doesn't sway me - people are claiming that we shouldn't be doing "frankenstein consensuses" to quote one editor, but on the other hand we aren't a bureaucracy and there's no prohibition on an A/B conversation/RfC/RM/etc. ending with a consensus for C - which this one clearly did. While the opposes greatly outnumber the supports on a cursory glance, there were two main reasons for opposes - that 2021 should be better than January 6, and that "attack" or "riot" was better than storming. In this instance, where two titles are perhaps equal, but neither is the current title, it makes sense to make a change to one of the proposed titles as opposed to leaving the article at a title that almost everyone agrees is worse. Furthermore, no policy or guideline prevents this sort of A/B discussion being closed as C, even when C/D are considered equal but better than both A/B. I'm still of the opinion that anyone reading the comments thoroughly will see an obvious consensus for two things: 2021>January 6 and "attack"/"riot">"storming" - and while there's not necessarily a consensus in this discussion between "attack" and "riot" that can be fleshed out in a new requested move if people so desire. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
"...claiming involvement just because..." – Please read the definition of "involved". It's simple and clear. — Chrisahn (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I based my opinions on WP:INVOLVED - the actual policy. The guidelines linked to there are akin to saying "anyone that's ever commented everywhere on a topic is never allowed to close things related to that topic" - which is not the spirit of involved. "Anyone who's ever closed an RfC on a topic is never allowed to close another one" - some pages have had literally hundreds of RfCs and if that were applied we'd quickly run out of eligible people to close it. Onetwothreeip was not involved per the spirit of the policy - regardless of what a non-policy level "guideline" says about it. That guidance needs updating to better define involvement rather than placing onerous and absurd restrictions on people for even thinking about the subject at some point in the past. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
1. OK, WP:RM/CI#Conflicts of interest is a "guideline", but it very clearly states multiple times who can not close an RM. Please read it again. It looks like you've misread it. "anyone that's ever commented everywhere on a topic is never allowed to close things related to that topic" – No, that's not what it says. It's about RMs. "Anyone who's ever closed an RfC on a topic is never allowed to close another one" – No, that's not what it says. It's about RMs, not about RfCs. 2. You should also read WP:INVOLVED again, especially this sentence: "Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past [...] disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." In conclusion: The policy and the guideline are clear. Onetwothreeip and Anachronist were WP:INVOLVED and had WP:RM/CI#Conflicts of interest. — Chrisahn (talk) 03:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I did read it. I was extrapolating those rules to outside RM to show how absurd and out of touch with the actual spirit of the actual policy is. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Sure, you can "extrapolate" as much as you want, but then you're not talking about the actual guideline (which is clear and simple), but about some fantasy rule you made up. Pointless. Good bye! — Chrisahn (talk) 03:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Okay, but that policy is harsh for a reason. Normal discussions on Wikipedia often have shades of gray available to them as a compromise answer. Names are black and white. Because of this, the decisions made by closers have to be able to be seen as objective. Normal people can disagree on which side "won" a discussion. That's why we need closers in the first place! So if you have strong beliefs about a request anyway, and use the inherent subjectiveness of an RM discussion as a shield to push your own previously held agenda, it's likely going to get people upset. Red Slash 22:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn. (involved) I'm not going to rehash points of the discussion as some are attempting here. The closer's statement on this page, that "It simply isn't feasible to wait for everybody to agree on an alternative title while the status quo remains, when other alternatives have more weight" demonstrates that even in the closer's mind, there's a deadline, and there's no clear consensus in the discussion. In their own opinion, other alternatives have more weight. Given the extreme heat in this editing area, this process should have been closed by an admin, and possibly by an admin panel. BusterD (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. I appreciate Chrisahn's narrative below explaining this poorly handled close. As pointed out in that brief contested technical process, Onetwothreeip is a frequent contributor to the page itself (with 39 edits) and to the talk page (with 19 edits). Closer is hardly sufficiently removed from this subject to allow them to perform a non-admin close on a complicated RM. BusterD (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn. (I was involved in the first of these two RM discussions, and a few earlier ones.) The title of this article has been contentious from the start. There have been several RM discussions before, and now there were two in quick succession: On May 20 for "January 6 United States Capitol attack" – closed after 11 days by Onetwothreeip, no clear consensus, not moved. So far, so good. And now on May 31 / June 1 for "2021 United States Capitol attack" – closed after 18 hours by Anachronist, who claimed there had been consensus in the previous RM discussion. That's simply not true. Even the closer of the previous discussion wrote: "While there is more support for attack than riot, this may be because only the former was mentioned in the initial request. Using riot may receive more support than attack in a separate requested move discussion, and both have more support than the current storming." This hasty and premature move is not how RM discussions should work, in particular not for a contested page. The previous discussion concerned a different question, and there was no clear consensus. Neither for the original proposal nor for others that may have been mentioned. Certainly not for a move to "attack". The move must be reverted, and we must have a proper discussion. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
The second move discussion should never have been opened. The discussion was closed in line with the rules regarding closure, and it was called a "contested technical request" when in reality it was asking to effect the close of the discussion. Onetwothreeip closed the discussion as clear consensus, because there was a clear consensus - there is no requirement that the title there is a consensus for be the exact one proposed in the RM at all, and Onetwothreeip correctly judged and weighted comments to determine that there was a clear consensus for 2021>January 6 and attack>storming - and then closed the discussion as such. Consensus doesn't require bolded !votes - it requires discussion and merits of the actual reasoning behind a change. The close was correct, and Anachronist was correct in closing the improper second move discussion (which isn't required when the prior discussion was closed and it's merely a technical need to move the page). You've provided no reasoning as to why the close is correct other than to counter your own claim by agreeing with the closer that there was a consensus that either attack or riot would be better than storming - and that consensus is enough to close in the way the closer did. I encourage you to reread the discussion and the close with an eye towards finding a consensus if one exists for any title - it's clear that you don't understand how we got to this move review and what the goal is here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
As Onetwothreeip said, there was no clear consensus for "attack" or "riot". Even if there was consensus that one of them would be better than "storming", we'd have to find out which one. Both had been proposed in previous RMs. There were separate, specific requests for a move to "2021 United States Capitol attack" and a move to "2021 United States Capitol riot". Both were closed with a consensus against the respective proposal. We can't just overturn these decisions because someone thought it looked like one of these titles was now favoured in a discussion about a different proposal. (Regarding "you don't understand": I agree that the whole thing is a bit confusing because of the multiple overlapping RMs and MRs, but if you read again what Srnec wrote above, you'll find that we're reviewing the move to "attack" which has now been performed.) — Chrisahn (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I disagree - I have seen no policy that, when a consensus exists that either of two options would be better than a third, that it's required to keep the worse option rather than selecting one of the two based on a weak consensus for it - and allowing further discussion about which of the two. There were two prior ones - but as was said, those were months ago, and there's been a lot of research into COMMONNAME now that wasn't done back then - consensus can change. The consensus now is that one of "riot" or "attack" is better than "storming", and the close reflected this and moved to the one that had a very weak preference for it - without prejudice towards further discussion between the two. That's proper in my book. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. In my opinion, the close was super messy. It wasn't at all clear to me what conclusion the closer had reached, because there was no overall decision like "No consensus" or "Moved" -- certainly none of the three possible outcomes one expects at a close. Whatever is decided here, can someone please guide the closer and ensure that they are crystal clear in any future close they might make? This mess here is a direct result of the lack of clarity of the close. For one thing, the article wasn't actually moved right after the close, despite the closer endorsing (I think?) a move. Edit: For the record, and to me it's less important than my comment above, I vote for Overturn, if only so that people feel like this is a fair and rational process. (Note: I participated in the !vote.) Edit 2: I find it really distasteful (understatement) that the closer not only edited their closing wording after the closing, but also masked the edit as "minor". See the edit summary for [3]. This is unethical, or at the very least just really extraordinarily not how closings are supposed to work. Moncrief (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I already argued for Overturn above, but I'd like to add another reason that I think is pretty decisive: Both Onetwothreeip and Anachronist clearly violated our policies when they closed these move requests. Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Conflicts of interest says: "An involved editor, admin or otherwise, may not close a move request. [...] You are considered involved if: [...] You have ever supported or opposed [a move request about the article in question]". Onetwothreeip wrote "Strongly oppose storming" in this move discussion and added a comment in this survey. Anachronist voiced support in this move discussion and took part in several other discussions. In a nutshell: The RM discussion from May 20 has to be re-opened because Onetwothreeip was not allowed to close it. And I guess the June 1 RM discussion then has to be closed procedurally, because another RM is still open... (Just to be clear: I don't think Onetwothreeip or Anachronist acted in bad faith. They made a mistake. It happens. Maybe they should be reminded of the rules regarding RMs. Especially for a contested title like this one...) — Chrisahn (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    I honestly had forgotten that I had been involved in the RM discussion. I hadn't recalled participating on that talk page in some months, and I happened to see in my watchlist that there was a technical issue in moving the article due to an existing redirect. Because the RM had been closed for a while, I just went ahead and did it, in spite the disagreement had I voiced in the discussion. I have no objection to un-doing the move. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    Likewise my involvement with the article was limited, months ago and not remembered. I don't think it has bearing on the close, but that's rightly for others to judge. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. There can be little debate about the quoted guidelines and provided diffs presented by Chrisahn above. Onetwothreeip and Anachronist both clearly violated RM guidelines, and coincidentally both editors moved the pages in favor of their own personal stances on this issue, based on diffs presented. Motives aside, this move review must overturn both closes and these pages should be moved back before any further discussion on the subject. BusterD (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Imperatives aside, the RM discussion speaks for itself. A strong consensus existed that "storm" is no longer a COMMONNAME while "attack" is. In contrast, a handful of editors argued that despite falling out of favor with RSes and LEOs, "storm" should be retained for being "more precise","more accurate", or better reflecting the ideology of the attackers. There's no other way this could have closed. Feoffer (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • By " other way..." do you exclude "except by someone without a demonstrated conflict of interest"? BusterD (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • That is an "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?" statement if I've ever heard one. An involved editor cannot close a !vote. The closer said they "strongly oppose storming," yet closed the !vote. By definition, the close is unethical. Of course there are "other ways" the !vote could have gone, if evaluated by an admin who is fully familiar with the policies here and hadn't expressed a personal opinion on the matter at hand. Moncrief (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, "I don't want to be dragged to the theater again when I already know how it's gonna end." 25+ folks expressed support for following COMMONNAME and the others agreed "storm" was no longer the common term. "Storming" was clearly the least popular of the proposed nouns, both among RSes and among editors -- reinserting it would be needlessly bureaucratic step backwards. Feoffer (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn - except for some very rare circumstances, we really shouldn't be doing frankenstein consensuses. There wasn't a consensus for the proposed title, there wasn't a clear consensus for any other title. Another RM can - and should - be used for a different title suggestion. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    There clearly is not a consensus for "2021 storming of the United States Capitol" as well. I decided to find the version with the most consensus to help resolve the issue of constant move requests and discontent with the title, while leaving open the possibility of another move request as you suggest, to get closer to the best possible consensus. This is not a typical outcome (because the situation is not typical), but it isn't ignoring rules.Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    You certainly ignored this rule: "An involved editor, admin or otherwise, may not close a move request. [...] You are considered involved if: [...] You have ever supported or opposed [a move request about the article in question]." Moncrief (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn There does not appear to be a consensus for the move, nor did there appear to be consensus amongst the supporters of some kind of move for the alternative title that it ended up being moved to. Number 57 22:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn - There was no consensus for the move, which was hardly discussed except in the context of the actual move target and as a rejection of it. Others such as myself didn't comment on how appropriate or inappropriate this alternate title would be, because it wasn't the target title and it never occurred to me that an awkward third title would be unilaterally chosen by involved editors out of an RM that wasn't suggesting that title. - Aoidh (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment A few thoughts:
    • The previous move request back in February (a month after the event) doesn't preclude any future consensus.
    • The small technical issue, which required admin assistance to carry out the page move, doesn't invalidate the non-admin closure.
    • Onetwothreeip opposed the 7 January requested move which resulted in a move from 2021 United States Capitol protests to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. This means that they're involved and technically shouldn't have closed this discussion. However, I think it's fair to ask whether they made a correct assessment of consensus despite their involvement. There's no need to overturn a close if the reclose will have the same outcome.
    • "Frankenstein" closes are fine; after all, what is Wikipedia if not a big stitched-together monster? Letting each editor express their own desired outcome is better than making an ever-expanding list of options to choose from.
    • Consensus takes priority over procedural issues. This was a difficult close by any measure: There's clear consensus that it shouldn't be "2021 storming of the United States Capitol" but no clear agreement on what it should be. "2021" and "attack" have significant support and represent what is probably the closest thing to consensus that we're going to find at this time. –dlthewave 02:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I just read the May 20 RM discussion again. There was no clear consensus that the title shouldn't be "storming". Lots of people argued that "storming" is the best option. — Chrisahn (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Some people did argue against following COMMONNAME/RSes , but few if any disputed the evidence that "Storm" is not common while "Attack" is. One editor argued: "Attack, while the common name, may not be WP:NPOV". Another argued for the term based on "symmetry in using an identical term used by rioters", while others asserted without evidence that "Storm" was "more precise/accurate" -- a claim that is not reflected by the RSes, which consistently prefer other terms such as "Attack". Feoffer (talk) 03:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
There was no clear consensus for "storming" either. The closest to consensus appears to be "attack". Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I'd argue, as I think you tried to in your closing statement, that there's a clear consensus against "storming". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME says: "When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly." There is no such common name. That's why lots of participants provide reasonable arguments for "storming" (but also for "riot" or "attack" etc.) based on WP:CRITERIA, e.g. precision. — Chrisahn (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse WP:NOGOODOPTIONS has bearing on this situation. This was not a "frankenstein" close but a NOGOODOPTIONS close, with the options being various forms of the title including attack, and also, as noted by the closer, riot. Even if the closer did not explicitly invoke this guideline, or follow it consciously, their close adheres to it. — Alalch Emis (talk) 06:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
    WP:OTHEROPTIONS was most definitely my rationing, which I could have further detailed.
    There are rare circumstances where multiple names have been proposed and no consensus arises out of any, except that it is determined that the current title should not host the article. In these difficult circumstances, the closer should pick the best title of the options available, and then be clear that while consensus has rejected the former title (and no request to bring it back should be made lightly), there is no consensus for the title actually chosen. And if anyone objects to the closer's choice, then instead of taking it to move review, they should simply make another move request at any time, which will hopefully lead the article to its final stable title.
    We could have left the discussion at no consensus and waited a few days for the one-millionth requested move to also reach no consensus, but I decided that some determination had to actively be made, which can still be further amended by another requested move discussion. I believe it would be a backwards step to revert to the previous title at this stage. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
    WP:OTHEROPTIONS is exactly on point, and I note it says: "instead of taking it to move review, they should simply make another move request". If anyone genuinely believes "Storm" has more support than "Attack", that would be the simplest way to demonstrate it. Feoffer (talk) 08:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn. (uninvolved). If a close is going to be made against numerical consensus, a compelling reason should be provided. I am not seeing that here. I also do not think it is a good idea to move to an unofficial option on an issue this contentious. Also, Ahecht and Elli give good reasoning as well. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse per Berchanhimez and Alalch Emis. If I had closed that discussion (and I've closed many), I would have likely closed it in the same way. It's a textbook WP:NOGOODOPTIONS, and the closer did well to read through the arguments and find a compromise title rather than do a quick headcount and say "OMG, no consensus here". I don't see much evidence for WP:INVOLVED claims, since if we should count a casual comment months ago as 'involvement' we would soon run out of eligible closers. While, personally, I find no fault in "storming" as part of a WP:NDESC title, a significant majority of RM participants preferred something else ("attack" typically), so that's what we've got in the end. Do the "overturners" above argue with the end result (which was IMO 'correct'), or the supposedly 'wrong' way it was achieved? WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY etc. No such user (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Process matters. After a close as botched as this one, yes, I do think an overturn is warranted, in order to restore integrity to the process and ensure that editors see any title move as fair and unbiased. I also would not vote as I did were the new title the one under consideration. Editors deserve the chance to vote specifically on the new title namespace, particularly on an article as contentious as this one. I would be in favor of a !vote on this new title, ideally limited to one week of discussion and with a commitment that an admin who has never expressed a personal opinion on the title be the one to close it. Moncrief (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Except that it does not work that way. Life would be simple if we always just had those binary choices to vote for or against, with angels coming down from the sky to close the discussions in divinely impartial manner, but reality is much messier than that. Nothing would ever get done if we wait for ideal conditions. As far as Wikipedia discussions go, that one was pretty much a par for the course, and the closer has done a reasonable attempt to find a workable solution. No such user (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I've been on Wikipedia since 2003. You don't need to patronize me. We can simply disagree without such nonsense. Moncrief (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
It was precisely because the article is contentious, and several move requests have been proposed and failed on a binary basis, that I felt the WP:OTHEROPTIONS solution was necessary. I would also favour another discussion to compare 2021 United States Capitol attack with other alternatives. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
But you haven't mentioned why you felt that you needed to be the one to close it, after having previously expressed your opinion. Red Slash 22:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn. This is one of the clearest cases of no consensus that I've ever seen. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Endorse (uninvolved and personally prefer “storming”). The closer claimed consensus for preferring “attack” over “storming”, and “2021” over “January 6”. Since only the first finding is challenged here, that’s my focus. I reviewed the discussion and found “attack” clearly favored over “storming” by 27, “storming” favored over “attack” by 19, and 12 explicitly neutral or unspecified on this question. Without counting I also recognized a strong preference for “2021” over “January 6”. In fact, the broad opposition to the “January 6” portion of the title made reading consensus here a bit of a challenge. This is one of the wisest closes I’ve ever seen, and it’s going on my list of great RM decisions accordingly. —В²C 22:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
This is sarcasm, right? You're not seriously calling a 27:19:12 grouping "consensus", are you? — Chrisahn (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Let me be blunter than B2C, speaking only for myself: No serious arguments were advanced for disregarding WP:COMMONNAME in this case. No prejudice to any future discussions, but "attack is biased towards the democrats", other personal preferences just don't add up to a hill of beans when RSes report multiple bombs and call it an attack. Before it was shown to be not COMMON, I personally preferred "storming" myself -- but I don't get to make that call, the RSes do. Feoffer (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
The argument for disregarding WP:COMMONNAME is simple: There is no common name. "Riot" and "attack" seem to be relatively common in RS, but "insurrection", "siege", "storming" are also used. In such a case, WP:COMMONNAME says "editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering WP:CRITERIA directly". — Chrisahn (talk) 09:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
So, you're saying the closer should have given little weight to arguments that "attack" was COMMON despite the evidence presented, but then ALSO ignored the 25+ people who preferred "attack", and instead closed by siding with the least popular option??? How does that work? I see arguments for an unpopular but COMMON name, and I see arguments for a popular but unCOMMON name -- but I don't see how Onetwothreeip could close with support for a name like "storm", which is neither COMMON nor popular in discussion. Feoffer (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't know why you're writing COMMON in upper case all the time. Are you just shouting? Or do you believe that "attack" is the "common name" in the sense of WP:COMMONNAME? If it's the latter, you're mistaken. It looks like "riot" and "attack" are used most frequently (and even that isn't certain - how about "insurrection"?), but we don't know which word is the most frequent. Please read WP:COMMONNAME again. Quote (emphasis mine): "if there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic..." – That's the case here. No one has been able to demonstrate that one of these words is most frequently used. There is no "common name" in the sense of WP:COMMONNAME. We have to apply WP:CRITERIA. Which is much harder, unfortunately. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
It was demonstrated that "riot" and "attack" were the common names, but there was more support for "attack" in the discussion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME says "single, obvious name". — Chrisahn (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Consensus is not a vote - there's no reason a 27:19:12 grouping can't be a consensus. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Not sarcasm. 27:19:12 supporting is much stronger than 19:27:12 opposing. —В²C 02:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Elli, Born2cycle: WP:DEFINECONSENSUS: "An option that is narrowly preferred is almost never consensus." According to В²C's count, 27 were for "attack", but 31 were against or neutral. That's not even a majority. In addition, as even Onetwothreeip said, "riot" might have received more support than "attack" if it had been proposed. There was no consensus for "attack". — Chrisahn (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
If we're going to keep up this vote counting, at least stop lumping in all neutral !votes with all opposed - one could equally lump all neutral !votes with support and then it'd be an even stronger consensus. Neutral is by definition neutral - it means that if the outcome goes either way, they would not oppose either option. Lumping them with either supports or opposes is wrong. However, they should be taken into account when determining the strength of the arguments presented. We also cannot assume that people who didn't make any comment on it are automatically opposed - the closer (and this move review) reviews the comments actually made - not what we think they would've said had they said something. If a user had an opinion they wanted to present but did not coherently state it in their comment in the move discussion, that's not something we can correct for and it doesn't mean that we automatically assume one way or another. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
There has to be consensus to move. A "Neutral" vote does not show a mandate to take an action, so it's hard to argue that it should count as a support. --Ahecht (TALK
) 20:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
@Chrisahn: you're misunderstanding that page. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn There was clearly no consensus for the new title, which was not part of the move request. TFD (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn. <uninvolved> Apologies to the RM closer. This is one I might have left to an admin to close, because it does appear to me to lack consensus, but at the same time the whole title thing is contentious and controversial. The title chosen might be the best title for the article, tho' it might not be the best title. Remains to be seen. I don't think relisting will accomplish anything; just reclose as no consensus and move the title back to what it was before the closure. As is usual with no-consensus outcomes, editors will be able to strengthen their arguments and try again in a few months to garner consensus for a title change. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 04:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Strike !vote Thought a lot about this one, and while editor Wugapodes said it most elegantly below, I decided to stick to my original "overturn" rationale. strike my overturn !vote and lean more toward endorsement of the closer's statement in the RM. Best of everything to all! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 09:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC) 05:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
"try again in a few months" Unless there's some rule I'm not aware of, I don't think that's on the table. "Attack" was by far most COMMON and the most supported by editors; but yes, there are process objections. We can accept the move and move on, or we can go back to square one and immediately start all over again with a proposal to do a clean move to the most popular title without everyone getting derailed by the "June 6" nonsense. Feoffer (talk) 04:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
By that standard, there will never be any consensus. There has to be some consensus generated from these several requested moves that have taken place over the last few months. It's untenable to not find some consensus outcome from these discussions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
To Onetwothreeip: of course there will be consensus! There was a previous consensus for the title before the most recent move, wasn't there? Then this RM is opened to once again see if consensus has changed. It had not changed in my opinion; however, that should in cases like this be determined by an experienced and trusted closer, an admin. If this is overturned and an admin determines that there is "no consensus" to move, which is how I would call it, then there is your continued consensus for the title 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. As for editor Feoffer's question, "try again in a few months" is not so much a rule established on Wikipedia as it is a suggestion to better ensure success. The longer the wait, the more likely it will be that a new RM would succeed in changing the page title. Please see WP:THREEOUTCOMES. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 09:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: I agree that all of these RMs have been a nuisance. But the title "storming" isn't 'untenable'. It meets all five WP: CRITERIA. Maybe another title would be even better. But a hasty, non-consensual page move like this one is an awful way of trying to resolve the impasse. — Chrisahn (talk) 10:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
We're probably not supposed to get into it here, but "storming" does NOT meet WP:CRITERIA -- there were bombs. Feoffer (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
The topic of the article are the events on Jan 6 between ca. 1 pm and 6 pm at and in the Capitol. Everything else is background / build-up / aftermath. The pipe bombs were planted a day before and a block away. But let's not get into it here. I'd be happy to discuss this elsewhere though.— Chrisahn (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Paine Ellsworth: There was a previous consensus for the title before the most recent move, wasn't there? – there wasn't. The previous title was not a result of robust consensus but a stopgap measure in a frenzied collective effort to ensure the article title is not based on the "protest" descriptor which was seen, by many people, as something that must be urgently corrected, understandably so. This is what the closer of that move discussion said: There is a clear consensus that the title should not be "2021 United States Capitol protests". The alternative was less clear. "Storming" seems to have a very rough consensus by !vote count and by the sources (at this time). A great many votes here were simply "I like it". That's not how we generally do things. Thankfully folks provided a policy driven reason: WP:COMMONNAME, citing the many major reliable sources that are using "storm" as their language. An option for "riots" or "insurrection" (among others) has also been floated, but the poor structure of their additions has not made them viable alternatives to the original, COMMONNAME proposal. I also note that very few sources were floated to back up "riot", and that it seemed to be the WP:OR interpretation of events by editors, along with terms like "coup". We say what sources say, and for the moment they seem to say "storming". However, there wasn't even "a rough consensus for storming", especially when eschewing vote counting and considering only substantive comments. Many of those comments were in the form of: "Support: the article must not be titled protest" – Aaand? What should it be titled? Should it be using "storming"? Why? ... Such comments were clearly not consensus-forming with regard to the "storming" descriptor. "Storming" only stuck because the proposer chose that descriptor on January 6 (in the subsequent course of the overarching name debate that proposer themselves recanted that proposal, !voting for another option), and because the closer thought that "storming" could be a common name, among competing options, most of which have proven in the course of 6 months to be vastly closer to a common name, and one was proven to be a generally accepted word. However, it wasn't a common name back then (the verb "to storm" has been relatively frequently used but that doesn't indicate the choice of descriptor such as storming /noun - gerund/ by reliable sources), and it isn't a common name now, and that's obvious to almost everyone. So there is no good reason why the article should be titled using that descriptor. Please take a careful look at the storming RM. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
To Alalch Emis: thank you, that appears to be a fair analysis. Here in this present point in time, the closer chose to ignore that there was no consensus in this RM to change from what had become the (interim, if you will) title choice. So all other arguments aside and focusing upon the subject of this move review, the closure of this RM was incorrectly done, in my opinion. So the closure should be overturned, and the title issue, while not put to bed, should be allowed to sleep on the sofa for at least three months. That will give editors time to strengthen their arguments, perhaps come up with a few new rationales that are maybe policy-/guideline-based, discuss the title issue informally a bit, and then request and successfully arrive at a more stable, consensus-based title for the article. We can only hope. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 17:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Three more months of "Storm" is not tenable when it's the clearly least popular title under discussion among both RSes and editors. Feoffer (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
To say it's "not tenable" basically just gives away that you are too close to the issue. Not having thought much about it beyond the former president's performance just before the "storming" or whatever, and the tragic aftermath that ensued, I think a more objective stance would be to accept the interim title and take some time to discover or create a title that will have some chance of actually being successful and lasting. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 17:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
"you are too close to the issue" No, I'm just thinking ahead. 25+ people explicitly endorsed "attack" and "storm" is not common among RSes -- if the move is overturned because of the june 6 goose chase or the closer not being an admin, surely one of those those 25 people will immediately propose a new move to the popular title and re-ping all the participants? You're imagining a "three months on the sofa" solution that isn't available to us. That's my logic, anyway. Feoffer (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, perhaps that is "thinking ahead", perhaps not. The closure was incorrect not because the closer was not an admin, because that is not acceptable here at MRV. The closure was incorrect because the consensus was not correctly assessed. That is the only issue with which we deal here at MRV, that is, whether or not the consensus of the move request was assessed correctly. The only issue. In my opinion, the closure should have been "no consensus", so the title should not have been moved. And if the title remains where it is now, there is nothing stopping opponents of the present title to do just as you plan to do if the title is moved back. But you are missing my point. The sooner anybody tries to change the title after this MRV has been closed, the less likely they will succeed. The longer that editors wait before trying again, the more likely the success of the attempt. Spin your wheels if you must, but try to understand that on Wikipedia, when one editor spins their wheels aimlessly, it causes many other editors to waste their time, as well. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 18:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
"The sooner anybody tries to change the title, the less likely they will succeed." That's probably true, but I'd estimate a clean process would be quite likely to succeed immediately. I'm not in the driver's seat spinning my wheels -- I had liked storm myself until it was conclusively demonstrated to be unCOMMON in RS and only then did I reluctantly agree it was time to reopen this can of worms. Feoffer (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth: When you speak of the closer's incorrect assessment of the consensus, you are at odds with how Born2cycle assessed the close when he found that a 27:19:12 grouping provides satisfactory consensus. Do you have a rebuttal to that argument that assesses consensus as found by the closer favorably? — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
That's 27 in favor of "attack", 19 against it and 12 neutral? No, that's not a consensus, not even on Wikipedia. Out of a total of 58 editors, less than half were in favor. Even if the neutrals are left out, that's still only 27 out of 46 editors. If you look closely you find that it wasn't even 2:1, more like 1.5:1, and I usually don't even look closely at the arguments (unless something with strong policy connections catches my eye) if the ratio isn't at least 2:1. So no, just going by the numbers and then later going also by the rationales, this RM was most assuredly not even close to being a consensus. My no consensus assessment still stands, as does my opinion that the RM should be overturned, re-closed as "no consensus" and the title moved back where it was before being closed. Again, just my opinion; I could be wrong. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 19:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth: One, it isn't a count. Policy still applies. What was the consensus to keep the current name, wwhich has basically no use among WP:RS's, versus another name? The current name is WAY out of line with WP:COMMONNAME. Yet, we can't agree on one name to change it to. With that being the case, a closing should make the best reading of consensus as they can and change the name. That is basically what they did. Should they have, given they were involved? No. But lets not allow that to get in the way of a decent closing that moves the discussion forward. Casprings (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@Casprings: Your piped link looks like you don't know the difference between WP:TITLE and WP:COMMONNAME. Please read the page thoroughly. You'll find that WP:COMMONNAME is just one of several sections. Also, it doesn't mean "the most common name" (which, by most counts, would be "riot"). WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply in this case, because (quote) "there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic". We have to apply WP:CRITERIA, which don't mention frequency of use. "Storming" meets all five criteria. (Maybe other titles are even better, but that's not the point here.) — Chrisahn (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
To Casprings: No, it's not just a count. We're both closers and we both know that. I was just responding to a question raised by editor Alalch Emis about the !vote-count ratio raised by editor B2C in regard to the usage of "attack" in the title. I do not consider the outcome to have been a consensus based on !voter arguments/rationales. While the closer shouldn't have closed this RM because of their involvement, that is not really strong in my reasoning. The survey and discussion simply had not formed a consensus to rename the page. So my "overturn" still stands. On a stability note, at least the present title will remain "stable" for as long as this MRV gets drawn out.   P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 18:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth and Chrisahn: I think there were and are arguments against storming not meeting WP:CRITERIA. For example, storming has connections to both QAnon and generally positively seen events like, Storming of the Bastille. Not particularly neutral. Nor is the title particularly conciseness. However, going back to your argument on WP:COMMONNAME, I would quote this line:

In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals.

Policy is telling us to look at both the number and quality of WP:RS that use certain names. As the source I provided shows, basically no one besides Wikipedia, uses storming. Do WP:RS's use both riot, attack, insurrection, etc? Sure. Editors can't agree on the alternative to use, but I think attack has the most agreement. However, where there is clear consensus to change the the articles name from storming. Current policy agrees with that assessment.Casprings (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
To Casprings: gentle reminder that we are not here to reargue the points of the RM. The survey and discussion were not at consensus; therefore, the closure was incorrect. It should be overturned as "no consensus", and the title should be moved back to what it was. A minimum of three months moratorium is suggested to allow new args to be formed, to strengthen the old args and to have a better chance of forming a consensus toward the best possible title for this article. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 18:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@Casprings: 1. Your quote adds no new information to this debate. There is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used. Please read what WP:COMMONNAME says about a case like this. 2. There was and is no consensus to change the article's name from storming. Many users have argued for "storming" in this RM and all previous RMs. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Calls for a moratorium on moving the article to more popular titles do stem not from reality but from authorial personal preference for a particular title that is eschewed by both RSes and editors. Nor does commonname call for us to ignore commonality in the presence of multiple common candidates. Feoffer (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
To Feoffer: since I was one who called for a moratorium, you seem to be trying to describe me as having an "authorial personal preference for a particular title that is eschewed by both RSes and editors". That does not apply to me because I couldn't care less which title is, was or will be at the top of the article in question. The moratorium is required by the past history of name-changing of this article. Editors need to get away from it, do other things for a few months and then come back to it with fresh, new ideas, arguments and rationales. If this is not done, then you can expect to spin your wheels in the wet mud of disagreement and non-consensus for a long time. I've seen one of these page-move battles go on for more than twelve years. A moratorium can only help matters like this. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 19:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
If you know of a way to get 25 editors to agree to sit with the least popular candidate for three more months, I won't be the 26th editor to restart the discussion, but until then, "moratorium" in this context is just air. Hell, if what you're saying were true, a minority could keep the article at an uncommon title for 12 years just by occasionally proposing a title they don't even like. The more you talk of moratoriums, the more obvious it is that returning ot the rejected title would just lead to endless spinning around a bureaucratic circle. This is a perfect argument that overturning the close that would not have occurred to me. Feoffer (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
That's one way to spin it; however, it is not about how "a minority could keep the article at an uncommon title for 12 years just by occasionally proposing a title they don't even like", it's all about going back and forth between and among different titles for what has in many instances been long periods of time. I think of a moratorium as a respite, not as a political or bureaucratic tool. I suppose it's difficult for some to be objective about it. And that is understandable because I've been on that side and on this side many times in the past. No one blames you for wanting the best title for this article. That's why all of us are here. It's all about forming and building consensus, so as I said, a moratorium can only help. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 19:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
A genie could only help, but it's not within my power to give you one, ya know? You need unanimous consent for a moratorium, and you won't get it. Feoffer (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
It's just a suggestion, and it does not require unanimous consent anymore than a title change requires it (unless you can show a policy or guideline that tells us it must be unanimous). All it requires is consensus. Cheers! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 21:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Unanimous consent stems from the fact that anyone can propose a move, so if you want no one to propose a move from an unpopular title to a popular one for three months, you're gonna need everyone on board with that. Feoffer (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth and Feoffer: A move moratorium has been proposed multiple times (talk page search). I partly agree with both of you: a moratorium would be useful, but won't happen. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
To Paine Ellsworth: Thank you, for the revised assessment of that aspect. Unlike you however, I think it's better to let the title sleep on this objectively milquetoast and mainstream title for a while, as yet another justifiable stopgap measure, and see if there is impetus to have the article titled using an objectively obscure descriptor that is storming (it was asserted in the interim by other closers that "storming" is not the WP:COMMONNAME, such as here not a particularly common word), under normal circumstances, without the unusual pressure of having to collectively right the wrong of the article being titled using "protest" on the very day of January 6. The lack of such pressures makes this RM more encyclopedic and more of what a RM discussion is functionally supposed to represent, than the one that moved the article to the previous title, however superficially problematic this close may appear (especially when one doesn't put a lot of faith in the applicability of WP:OTHEROPTIONS). — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
You might be correct, I honestly don't know, nor do I care which title is applied. The only issue at this point is whether or not the move request was correctly closed, and I have taken issue with that. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 18:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
"objectively milquetoast" – "milquetoast" is your opinion. Nothing "objective" about it. See the discussion about "attack". — Chrisahn (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
@Chrisahn: "Storming" was ruled out in the close due to its lack of support, and greater support for alternatives. What was untenable was the possibility of not finding any consensus at all. Given that there should have been at least an interim solution, "attack" was the greater choice. This was additional to keeping the time element as 2021 rather than January 6, and moving the descriptor (storming, attack, riot etc.) from the position of the second word to the last word. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
What's 'untenable' about not finding consensus? That's a common outcome of RM discussions. So what? The discussion you closed wasn't even about the title you chose! We've had a thorough discussion about exactly the title you chose, and it was closed as not moved, because the closer found consensus opposing the move. — Chrisahn (talk) 12:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
No consensus is an inappropriate outcome for requested moves on this article as there have been far too many discussions failing to reach consensus. To repeatedly not find any consensus means the previous title would have been retained. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
The previous title would have been retained. Exactly. That's what we do in such cases. It's true that there has been no consensus to move to another title despite numerous RMs in five months. That's actually a pretty good sign that a lot of people think "storming" isn't so bad. Otherwise, they probably would have been able to agree on a better compromise. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus (involved as the initial closer in the previous RM that I shortly thereafter self-reverted) There is simply no consensus to be had here. I completely disagree with the closer's assertion that There is clearly consensus for moving to a title with 2021 United States Capitol. Judging from the RM, I think there is, perhaps, a slight consensus in favor of not moving the article, but the difference between that and no consensus is immaterial. OhKayeSierra (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn. There was no consensus for the proposed move, the proposer's analysis why the then-title did not meet WP:COMMONNAME is a Google search, and the name the page was moved to was not proposed. Also, why was the RfC closed only one day after the last response at the time? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn/reopen I do want to congratulate the closer on an excellent WP:NOGOODOPTIONS close, but trout him/her for closing after having already expressed weeks ago that he/she wanted the page moved off of "storming". In other words, overturn and reopen not per the close itself--which was actually pretty good; I agree with @Born2cycle:--but because the closer was involved. WP:RMCI is crystal clear; if you have expressed a clear prior opinion on a move request, do not be the one to close move requests for that topic. There are sooooooo many good editors on Wikipedia; surely someone else could've correctly closed this. Red Slash 21:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
    I appreciate your comment, but that expression was months ago, not weeks ago. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't matter. WP:RMCI: "You are considered involved if ... You have ever supported or opposed such a move request". — Chrisahn (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Reclose. (Uninvolved) Given the closers being involved and a contentious discussion, this needs to reopened for a new close. PaleAqua (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The person closing this review may wish to reopen the discussion with alternatives that are more likely to succeed, instead of reverting the page move at this time. The current title is relatively neutral and without much controversy itself, which is suitable while discussions to fully resolve the title occur. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
"relatively neutral and without much controversy itself" - that's simply not true. See the discussion about "attack". You're obviously biased. I think you should accept that you made a mistake when you closed this RM discussion (because you were involved). Don't try to talk people into keeping the title you chose. — Chrisahn (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
"relatively neutral and without much controversy itself" - that is true. The fact that "attack" failed to garner consensus in that RM doesn't mean that it was a controversial proposal at any time; by actually reading the discussion one can easily see that it wasn't due to a controversy surrounding the descriptor but other reasons (such as fatigue). People were even observing how "attack" had the largest minority support in an RM prior to that one. Onetwothreeip did not demonstrate any bias toward "attack" when they said that. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus (uninvolved). To close a well-attended RM for an alternate proposal is fine, but requires some pretty clear consensus to do so or a strong policy argument. Since all the titles are policy-compliant, this comes down to vote-counting a bit, and not seeing sufficient consensus behind the end result. SnowFire (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn (uninvolved) apperently the closing editor was involved as well as the other arguments shown above convince me the best action is to simply overturn.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 04:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse First, I am involved. Should the closure have closed it? No. Is it a fair reading of the discussion and the general consensus on the page for months? Yes. There is consensus that storming is not a common name for this and this has gone back and forth for months. The closure went to a good name that will have consensus if you just leave it along. Casprings (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just because a closer might miss it in the wall of text above – the admin who performed the move wrote: "I have no objection to un-doing the move." — Chrisahn (talk) 01:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
They moved the page but didn't close the request, which was separate. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter, but: Anachronist closed the June 1 RM and moved the page. — Chrisahn (talk) 10:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
They didn't express an opinion on how this review should be closed or what the title should be, so let's not imply they did. Feoffer (talk) 07:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I didn't imply that. I simply added this because AFAIK admins are sometimes wary (for good reasons) of undoing another admin's work. That's all. — Chrisahn (talk) 10:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just because a closer might miss it for a lack of specific disclosure – the nominator of the pertinent move endorsed the close, writing: "Is it a fair reading of the discussion and the general consensus on the page for months? Yes", despite the move to an alternative title — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Your comment is confusing. (To clarify: Casprings started the May 20 RM for "January 6 United States Capitol attack". Casprings has always been for "attack" and seems to believe there is and/or was a consensus for "attack". So what?) I guess your comment was a retort to mine, but I think you missed the point. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Experienced closers don't ascribe an above-average weight to nominator's advocacies uncritically, but they know that unlike most participants in formal processes around namimg, RM nominators actually read all of the comments in a discussion they've started, because it's simply human that they be invested in their nomination and want to see how it progresses. When somebody nominates one title and the result is a significantly different title (in this case you could say crucially different as the nominator's emphasis was actually on the date part, not on the descriptor), and they still endorse the close in a MR, that's quite a phenomenon. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, that and it is better. Not a prefect title, but better. The reason this name hasn’t changed is because of endless disagreement on what is the prefect name which results in keeping the worse name. Storming isn’t Wikipedia:COMMONNAME. Clear consensus on that, if you look at the months of discussions. Some very good analysis show that. Name it riot. Name it attack. All better names. The question is to change it to something better, not to try for prefect. The closures logic is fine. Jan 6 doesn’t have consensus. Should he or she have done the closing? No. But for *#*!s sake, can we just change it to something that SOMEONE uses versus a title that basically NO ONE uses?Casprings (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
You misunderstood WP:COMMONNAME. See my reply above. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn This was an aggressive and unilateral move by a heavily involved closer who came up with a name not proposed in the move request. A new request can be made after discussion of some current alternatives. My current view is that it should follow RS and refer to the storming as an insurrection. SPECIFICO talk 16:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Whether approved or overturned, a move moratorium is in order, with a three-admin close next time. It is an emotional and political topic in the news, and new sources are still coming. For what it’s worth, I think the current title is good enough for the time being, subject to a weak status quo ante on a fresh RM in not less than two months. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
In the unlikely event the close is overturned due to who the closer is or something similarly idiosyncratic, we would need an immediate clean discussion. Feoffer (talk) 05:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
This “need” is overstated, and “immediate” and “clean” may make your opinion self contradictory. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, "need" is relative so let me operationalize it for you. If the move were to be overturned exclusively on the grounds that the closer was involved, I would immediately propose another move regardless of any requests for a moratorium, and nothing would be accomplished except bureaucracy. For this reason combined with NOTBUREAU, the closer almost certainly will not close on that basis. Feoffer (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Instead of ending discussion, I would suggest an RFC in which editors are invited to rank their preferred verbs (attack, storm, insurrection, riot, etc) from 1-N. We then take the votes and figure out which verb has the most support by eliminating lower ranking verbs. Then we set up a move request with the verb with the most support, with a link to the RFC. That is the process that might actually get consensus. Ending discussion rarely does.Casprings (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Strongly oppose use of a ranked voting system that uses elimination of lower ranks. There is very well established voting theory for single winner voting, and this suggestion is particularly poor. It can be skewed hugely by strategic addition in irrelevant alternative, for example. Instead of ranking, use rating. Score voting has an abundance of attractive properties. Marking each idea out of ten is easy. For people who are less number-centric, ideas can be rated "bad"/"fair"/"good"/"excellent" for example, and doing so has the benefit of dissuading the non-productive practice of averaging results. Score with reasons, and everyone can see which ideas have support and which will always be majority opposed. Eliminate the ideas that are widely rated poorly, and continue discussion on the leading ideas. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Went ahead and started the discussion here: Casprings (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • On the involved point, a review of editing history[4][5] suggests that the user edited the article in early January - as it was a current event - but not since. It's hard to argue, solely on this basis, that they're passionate about the topic as a result. I'd be wary of calling this an involved close. Not an endorsement of the close, as I haven't the time to review the discussion more substantively atm. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    • This. The involved requirements at WP:RMCI are not in line with the involved criteria as understood by the community. Anyone claiming involved solely on the advice of RMCI has not produced reasoning why RMCI actually resembles understanding of the community. RMCI is not a guideline/policy - and if it is contrary to normal community practice, it has absolutely no merit whatsoever. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
      Well, now that I read more closely the relevant parts of the (very long) discussion above, it seems the closer did indeed express an opinion here (earlier I'd only noticed the other comment they made under the same section header, which did not seem like an expression of opinion). It'd have been better for proponents to focus on that, rather than the number of edits made to the page... Anyway, I'd normally class 'strong opposition', at least in a recent enough timeframe, as involvement. However it's reasonable to think that the editor forgotten about their previous comment (and I note that ~200 editors participated in that RfC in 12 hours). Unfortunately, the optics aren't great of making a close on a matter you've previously voiced an opinion, and I would generally consider it inadvisable at best. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't the applicable policy be located at WP:INVOLVED? The policy states that n general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may be, or appear to be, incapable of making objective decisions in disputes to which they have been a party or about which they have strong feelings. Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. Engaging in a formal discussion regarding the name of the page in January seems to fundamentally be the same dispute (the naming of the page) that we are dealing with here, the only difference being a difference in time. At the very least, wouldn't a vote to strongly oppose storming indicate that the editor has expressed strong feelings on the topic? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
      When I wrote my original comment, I didn't realise they voted to "strongly oppose" the move. Most people just criticised the user for having 39 edits or whatever, most of which were cleanup and in January. That I wouldn't have considered involvement. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn There was no consensus to move, and the closer was involved.Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn No consensus for the move, and the fact that the closer had previously stated "strongly oppose storming" means this cannot stand. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse I guess? I think the result is reasonable despite everything else leading up to it being wrong, so on balance I guess I endorse per WP:NOTBURO. I still think an uninvolved closer would be better, so in that sense I would advocate for overturn.
    Having read the discussion, I find many comments in this review unconvincing at best and factually incorrect at worst leading me to disagree that there was no consensus for the move. Firstly, the third comment suggested the title "2021 United States Capitol attack" and that option was supported by multiple other editors, with Amakuru explicitly suggesting the title within 3 hours of the RM being opened. Arguments that it was an undiscussed option are blatantly false and should be discounted when determining consensus on the close.
    Second, a large portion of the opposition was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of COMMONNAME. As brought up by Anachronist in an oppose comment, the commonname guideline applies when there is a single, unambiguous common name for a topic. When there is no common name or when there are multiple common names with no unambiguously favored one, WP:COMMONNAME itself says specifically editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly. So every !vote that just said "oppose not the most common name" or "oppose no common name" is citing a wider consensus that directly refutes their argument, and therefore they should be discounted. Both support and oppose commenters show that while there is no unambiguously accepted common name, "attack" is reasonably on par with "storming" in terms of usage and a viable candidate given our article titling criteria.
    Finally, a lot of the remaining bolded "oppose" comments were about removing the year, not about "attack". In fact, many of those were explicitly neutral on whether to use storming or "attack". If you just counted the bolded statements, that might not be obvious, but opposition to "attack" is not as robust as head counting would make it seem.
    So given all that, I think there's a pretty obvious consensus to keep the year instead of the date and a viable consensus to use "attack" instead of "storming". I haven't gone through the discussion with a fine toothed comb, so I can't say the consensus for "attack" is unambiguous, but just reading through it I can see how a reasonable closer could see rough consensus for the new title. The main issue was that an involved editor closed a highly contentious move discussion which was just a recipe for disaster; for that reason alone it's worth a new closer but I don't think the discussion supports a clear "no consensus and move on" result from move review. Wug·a·po·des 00:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I very much disagree with your interpretation that "2021 United States Capitol attack" was an option in this RM. Yes, it was mentioned, and in other RMs that might count as an additional option, but not in this case. The title of the page has been contentious from the start. There has been an RM explicitly for "2021 United States Capitol attack". The closer found consensus opposing the move. WP:THREEOUTCOMES says: " is usually bad form to re-request a move if consensus is found against it (until and unless circumstances change)". Very little (if anything) has changed since that RM. OK, in the spirit of WP:NOTBURO, we might have another RM for "2021 United States Capitol attack". But it has to be clear and explicit.
On May 20, I took part in an RM about "January 6 United States Capitol attack". Nothing else. My comment focused on the "January 6" part, because that's what was new about the title. If I had known that someone would try to interpret the RM as being about "2021 United States Capitol attack" again, my comment would have been very different. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
With all the venues for this discussion, it's easy to disoriented, but you actually were able to state your opposition to Amaruku's suggestion. Feoffer (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
You misunderstood the comment you linked to. Amaruku had underestimated the prevalence of "January 6" because of flawed search terms. I pointed out better search terms. If you read my comment closely, you'll find that it could be read as presenting evidence supporting "January 6". That's why it starts with "I don't support a move at this time, but to be fair...". My comment wasn't about "attack". — Chrisahn (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
But I very much agree with you that many people have misunderstood WP:COMMONNAME. Our arguments should be based on WP:CRITERIA. Too many participants in these RMs said stuff like "title X is most common", or "title X is not neutral", without regard for WP:CRITERIA. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't want to get into the weeds of arguing every detail but this still wound up being longer than I hoped--sorry about that, Chrisahn. First, WP:THREEOUTCOMES contains a subsection cited by multiple participants in this move review: WP:OTHEROPTIONS so focusing on one line of that policy without engaging with other parts cited by participants is not particularly convincing. Second, I recommend reading WP:NOTAVOTE. Requested moves are a discussion, so you should not be simply giving an up-or-down vote on the proposal with no regard to what others have said. If you do so, then your comment is liable to be discounted for not dealing entirely with the subject at issue. That's not always the case, of course, but there's a good reason to do so here. You replied to an editor explicitly recommending the ultimate move title (in fact, the first editor to do so). In that comment you explicitly compared various search results with the word "attack". Your eventual bolded !vote specifically considers "attack" vs other nouns: "riot" still seems to be a more common name for the event than "attack". Even assuming you did not see the rest of the discussion (I also comment on RMs and dip out), based on your statements at the time you had to have known that "2021 United States Capitol attack" was a possible option. I don't mean to put you on blast; my point is that you and many other commenters clearly did consider the alternative, and it is reasonable to judge consensus based on those comments per WP:NHC. Finally, while there was a consensus against the title in February, consensus can change. Given the political nature of the event, the prominent reader facing requested move banner, and the proximity to the event, there is reason to believe that the February discussion might be skewed by partisan opinions rather than simply being a discussion about Wikipedia policy. Consider page views from February to June. The page was getting about twice as many page views during the first RM compared to the second. Clearly something did change, and one factor seems to be the influence of partisan readers on the discussion. Another factor that changed was explicitly commented on by participants: we know far more now than we did a month after the event (see the essay Wikipedia:Let the dust settle#First impressions count, but aren't always correct for more). I have only skimmed the February discussion, but many of the editors there opposed based on usage in sources at the time. However, editors in this RM explicitly discussed how coverage has changed. It would be nice to have an explicit refutation of the February RM, but it's not required by policy. From the social context and arguments of the participants, it is reasonable to conclude that this RM shows a legitimate consensus that has changed in the three months between the RMs (modulo the caveats of my original comment). Wug·a·po·des 23:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
You're mostly missing the point. 1. (regarding OTHEROPTIONS) "without engaging with other parts cited by participants" – Read again what I wrote: "in other RMs that might count as an additional option" 2. I've read the whole RM we're discussing here, and I've read almost every comment in most previous RMs. Have you? I doubt it. 3. "you should not be simply giving an up-or-down vote" – Are you saying that's what I did? Sorry, but that's bullshit. Read what I wrote in the RM. 4. Of course I had seen the suggestion of "2021 United States Capitol attack". I explained above why I didn't address it. You seem to think that participants in an RM are required to address every other option mentioned, lest their comments might be "discounted". You're so very wrong. 5. Of course I (briefly) mentioned "attack". Because it was part of the proposed new title! WTF. But I focused on "January 6", because that was the new part. We had already discussed "attack" to death. 6. "there is reason to believe that the February discussion might be skewed by partisan opinions" – Sure, but that also applies to the May discussion. When I look at the RMs, I don't see any difference in partisanship. The main difference between February and May is that in February, more users participated in the RMs. 7. "Clearly something did change" – What hasn't changed is how the event is called in WP:RS. That's the point. – Chrisahn (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
arguments were in fact made that RSes no longer use 'Storming', and I for one found that logic convincing. Feoffer (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
That comment is an example of the misunderstanding of COMMONNAME addressed by Wugapodes above (and I agree with Wugapodes on this point). — But I'm not sure this sub-thread is adding any useful information to this MR. I guess someone should {{collapse}} the off-topic exchange that started with "I don't want to get into the weeds..." — Chrisahn (talk) 09:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Wugapodes wrote: every !vote that just said "oppose not the most common name" or "oppose no common name" is citing a wider consensus that directly refutes their argument, and therefore they should be discounted. When I read that, I found no support for you contention that we should disregard recognizability and instead opt for a title rarely used by contemporary RSes. Fortunately, we needn't read tea leaves, we can ping @Wugapodes: for clarification of their stance. Feoffer (talk) 10:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
"disregard recognizability" – Read WP:CRITERIA. Quote: "Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." Are you saying that "2021 Storming of the US Capitol" isn't recognizable? That's ridiculous. — But this is getting off-topic, and we should stop (or move this elsewhere). This is a MR, not a RM. — Chrisahn (talk) 10:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
It was demonstrated that "storming" is no longer in use by RS, and thus not in compliance with Wikipedia:Article titles. For me, MR-vs-RM-vs-ArticleTalk concerns were largely mooted by closure on general ArticleTalk discussion during MR. Feoffer (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't think arguing over interpretation of a single !vote in the discussion is productive, and move review is not for relitigating the move discussion so I don't have an opinion on the what parts of the titling criteria certain options fit better. To Chris's points: (1) You admit that in any other move discussion other options would be considered as viable results, but you want this one to be an exception. Your reasoning is that a discussion from three months prior, done close to the event in question, and potentially drawing greater outside, partisan participation should be uncritically taken as the final word despite WP:OTHEROPTIONS and WP:CCC directly contradicting you. I'm not even the first person in this move review to point out that your understanding of the consensus policy is mistaken. On June 3, both Berchanhimez and Elli criticized how you interpreted policy. (2) I have read the move discussion being reviewed here, and I think that's patently obvious considering my original comment specifically cites particular comments and threads. In my second comment I literally quote your oppose comment where you explicitly compare "riot" versus "attack", though you now want to claim you thought the whole discussion was only about January 6 vs 2021. Either you're blatantly lying to try and win this argument or you haven't read my comment or your own. Secondly, I don't think saying that you're deeply involved in the move discussions at that page is the burn you seem to assume. I have not read every comment of every move discussion at that page because that's not what we're discussing here and I'm not particularly interested in the title of the page. (3) I'm not saying you thought it was an up-or-down vote, but you seem to want to play both sides. You want us to believe that the only acceptable option was the one explicitly proposed at the top of the RM (I took part in an RM about "January 6 United States Capitol attack". Nothing else.), but when I say that your misunderstanding of how discussions work means your comment gets discounted, you say that other options actually are possible in RMs (just not this one). You need to pick one: are RMs only about the proposal at the top or are other options possible? You can't just pick whichever is convenient for your side. (4) You don't have to respond to every point of a discussion, but if you ignore the central thesis of a comment—which was literally written in bold and which you directly replied to—then I really don't know how you expect someone to take you seriously. If that's what you want to claim, then fine, your comment should be discounted because you either willfully ignored or did not comprehend the bolded thesis of a comment you directly replied to and competence is required. (5) Here you just outright admit that you understood that "attack" was a point of debate and had offered opinions on it. You also didn't just mention attack, you literally offered "riot" as an alternative to both "attack" and "storming" and I quoted that above. (6) You're missing the point. You're saying nothing has changed since February, yet readership has halved. The particular effects that has on an RM could be debated, but my point is that readership changes alone could explain why consensus has changed since February. (7) You can believe this, but participants in the requested move disagreed with you. This is also a microcosm of your general rebuttal style here. I've offered multiple policies, guidelines, and essays explaining how to read consensus and your response is to say "nuh uh, I'm right". I'm really not interested in discussing this point further with you. Wug·a·po·des 19:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Here's what I actually wrote: "in other RMs that might count as an additional option, but not in this case". Here's what you wrote: "You admit that in any other move discussion other options would be considered as viable results, but you want this one to be an exception." You misrepresent what I said. You twist my words to suit your rhetorical needs – drop "might", add "any". Subtle enough that a casual reader won't notice it. I find that rather disingenuous. Large parts of your replies have that quality. So, yeah, I'm not interested in further discussions with you either. At least we can agree on that. Bye. (Seriously: Can someone please {{collapse}} this incredibly useless sub-thread?) — Chrisahn (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Do any admins or others more familiar with this process have a sense of when this might be closed and decided upon? It's been open now for two weeks, and it seems to me that "running out the clock" could itself affect the final decision. Is there more input needed before a decision can be made? Moncrief (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
"Running out the clock?" There is no clock. No whistle is about to be blown, no buzzer is about to sound. It sat six months at the uncommon stopgap title and that's fine; if it sits at the current title while RSes/editors/admins coalesce, nothing bad happens. Feoffer (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks, BusterD. As for Feoffer, you have been posting a lot on this page, not everything all that useful to discourse (example: just above). Moncrief (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Sorry you feel that way. Anxiety about 'running out the clock' seemed to merit a gentle reminder of WP:NODEADLINE. I argued some of these discussions would best conducted on article talk, but others disagreed. Feoffer (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I could have more artfully articulated my two-cent opinion that the longer this drags on, the easier it is for a closer to be influenced by the mere status quo of the change, and the potential controversy/difficulty (due to all the associated changes made at linked articles) a reversion now would entail. As that's an opinion of mine rather than a fact-based assertion, I should have phrased it differently or omitted that detail. I'm glad BusterD listed it where he did. Apologies for getting somewhat personal re my response to you. Over and out. Moncrief (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • As an MR regular, though a lot less active lately, my experience is that move reviews are a slow process. Sometimes they will close quickly, though mostly for snow closes, in the case of form shopping, or procedural closes when new RM are have been opened before the MR has been closed. Reviews being open over a month is not that uncommon, especially for ones that receive a lot of comments. I've seen some listed at closure requests stay there for a few weeks. PaleAqua (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
This shouldn't be very difficult. We simply cannot have a heavily-Trump-involved non-Admin editor closing such an RfC. This poll is not about relitigating the outcome or whether the closer might suggest an alternative. No involved closer should press for such an alternative. In this case, the closer is one of the more frequent editors of the article and has a history of controversial edits on other Trump articles. We don't need to decide the title here, we just need to ask a brave and hardy Admin to close the RfC. SPECIFICO talk 21:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
This is really good information to know about; I wasn't aware of that. Do you have examples of the closer's edits on other Trump articles, particularly the controversial ones? Those would be helpful for any admin reviewing this MR to have. Moncrief (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
@Moncrief: - as you can see here, 123 has removed a lot of content from Donald Trump's article [6] and the timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections [7]. This has been controversial, of course, but not necessarily wrong. starship.paint (exalt) 05:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
The accusation of one of the more frequent editors of the article is a blatant lie, as apparent to anybody who checks the article history or any statistical tools, and you should withdraw it. Whether you or anybody feels my edits on other articles related to Donald Trump are controversial are statements of opinion and not fact, but easily refuted by the focus of my edits on Donald Trump-related articles being primarily about article size and not the controversial nature of the subject matter. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Statistics show that 123 is #25 in terms of authorship (0.9%, whereas #1 is 8.6%) and #39 in terms of edits (39 edits, whereas #1 has 493 edits). On the other claim, that 123 has a history of controversial edits on other Trump articles ... I would consider it accurate, though it does not mean that 123 was wrong. starship.paint (exalt) 05:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
And not only that, 33 out of those 39 edits were in January, within the first two days of the article. I can't think what anybody would consider "a history of controversial edits" I've made on any article, unless this is only to mean that I have made edits which have been contested. Hence why the second claim is a matter of opinion and not a lie like the first, but either way is not the matter of discussion here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
You've just given an example of the sort of insistent denial that disqualifies you as closer in this case. SPECIFICO talk 07:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn, unfortunately, and let an experienced, completely uninvolved admin close it (I voted support on the RM). NACs need to be positively golden, and this one was too contentious for any NAC, let alone one by an editor with any level of involvement in the article whatsoever, [8]. While I would love it if the new closer came to the same conclusion as Onetwothreeip, that is their call. VQuakr (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse per Wugapodes well-made arguments above. I was involved, in thqt I voted, although I wasn't too bothered about the choice of riot/storming/attack etc. I mainly wanted to avoid the unusual and unfamiliar "January 6" label. And I think consensus ended up fairly clear on that point. There may be questions about the previous involved status of the closer, but I don't really think a significantly different close would result with any other, per Wugapodes reasoning. Let's leave this alone for a while.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse per WP:NOGOODOPTIONS. A lot of the press about this (Fast Company) points out that there's a significant negative connotation with the word "storming" and neo-Nazis that given there is no great choice, we should lean on the one that Nazis don't like. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that's a valid argument ("don't choose a name that awful people might like" isn't one of our WP:CRITERIA), but I bet Nazis would like "attack" just as much as "storm" – both have militaristic, violent connotations. If you want to piss off Nazis, you should probably endorse "riot", which implies chaos and disorganization. :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Without trying to put our thumb on the scales for- or against- Neo-Nazism, the takeaway is that RSes point out "storm' had NPOV/TONE problems. Feoffer (talk) 02:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn. Based upon the closer's prior statement that they strongly oppose storming in a prior RfC, the closer was in no position to make the close, nor to attempt to synthesize a WP:NOGOODOPTIONS close. While Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, this is certainly not one of those sorts of rules that should be ignored. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
WP:NOTBURO is a rule in itself, so whenever finding that in a given situation a given outcome would be overly bureaucratic for the sake of it, one would not be applying WP:IAR, i.e. ignoring a rule, but not-ignoring the rule that precludes an overly bureaucratic approach. IAR here would actually lead to the reverse of your logic: that despite Wikipedia not being a bureaucracy, bureaucratically-minded concerns are sometimes so incredibly valid that they trump all other considerations. This way we would be ignoring the rule that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. But are we there? I don't think we are. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Someone being too involved to close something isn't a bureaucracy issue. They just happened to close something in a way that they already !voted to support previously, that's not WP:IAR, it's (giving the appearance of) supervoting. The issue here isn't that bureaucracy is in the way, the issue is that involved editors are. - Aoidh (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
NOTBURO is not about the close itself but on what to do when closing this move review . Often a Overturn(reopen) is similar to a relist and closing the move review and the reopened requested move are separate closes. move review is supposed to only focus on if the close followed RMCI and is not rearguing. It's pretty clear here that there was an involved issue with the close. The closure of this discussion is already going to have to do a lot of reading as often the bolded !vote here are kinda split on what they mean. For example some of the people voting "Endorse" and "Overturn" are actually voting for the same thing when the comments are read. And not all people !voting for "Endorse" (or likewise with "Overturn") are in agreement. Given the likely hood that the reclose will end up with the same result and the amount of discussion that has already taken place between the RM and this MR, and the depth of reading required it seems reasonable for the close of the move review to also reopen and reclose the requested move. PaleAqua (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Given that an uninvolved admin has endorsed the outcome, an overturn based purely on identity of the closer would serve no non-bureaucratic purpose. Feoffer (talk) 02:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
  • No consensus meaning essentially endorse close. I don't know what could happen now that hasn't happened in the past 7 weeks that this MR has been open, and uncertainty about the status quo is harming the encyclopedia. Attempts to rename categories related to this topic have been stalled during this discussion, leading to inconsistency. Opponents of the new name deserve a resolution of this debate so that attempts can begin to discuss a better name. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    • It wasn't a no consensus close, so what are you endorsing? Srnec (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
      • I believe they were saying there was no consensus here in the move review, which they believe should default to an endorsement of the close of the original discussion. Given that nobody has found a consensus here within over a month of discussion, I think that at best this move review is a no consensus and Firefangledfeathers is correct that other things (such as renames of associated pages, discussions about how to refer to this page in other pages, etc) would benefit from an end to this saga. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
        • Yes, I am calling for ′′this discussion′′ to be closed as no consensus. Do you have a suggestion for a way to clarify? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
        • @Berchanhimez: Your consensus detector seems to be broken. You saw a consensus in the RM discussion although less than 50% of participants were for "attack", but you don't see a consensus here, where about 75% of the !votes say "overturn". Strange. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
          • Because consensuses are not a vote. The !votes for overturn here based on "involvement" fail to recognize that the RM closing instructions are flat out wrong - someone is not involved simply because they have commented on something in the past, and the actual WP:INVOLVED guideline does not match with what people are trying to claim about the closer of the RM. A page that is merely informational (and while I agree may be best practice to avoid this sort of lengthy discussion) does not override the fact that the community as a whole would not consider this to be involved - and I have not seen a single person claiming involvement explain why the rules for an RM are/should be more stringent than for other types of discussions. As such, those sorts of !votes do not weigh heavily towards a consensus to overturn for that reason - because they are not explained and not in line with the actual policy/guideline, no matter what an informational page says. It's like if people quote an essay that's in direct contravention of policy - no matter if 90% of the !voters agree with the essay, the best that can be formed is a no consensus because consensus that is contrary to a larger consensus but is not explained fully why that larger consensus should be ignored is not a consensus. You may also note that of uninvolved people here who've explained, there are quite a few valid arguments as to why the close here should not be overturned - whereas the argument for overturning is quite weak in comparison. I'd appreciate you not pinging me here again to say my consensus detector is broken or similar comments, and I think we should all just wait for this discussion to be closed at this point as continuing this aside would not be beneficial to this discussion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse per Wug, B2C, and the other analyses above. Consensus for "attack" is clear once the !votes are weighted. (Kind of like this discussion.) Levivich 21:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn I've had a chance to read the arguments closer. ~50 votes were cast. In terms of boldwords, support/oppose was roughly 50/50. The discussion was muddled by the fact that the proposer decided to use "January 6" to begin the title, thus effectively proposing two changes in one RM. Some editors cast conditional supports and conditional opposes as a result, asking for "2021" to be kept as the start of the title. Those also roughly balance out. ~50% support cannot usually be considered a consensus, especially not when the closer is involved.
    I know these RMs are getting tiring, but that's largely because nobody can put together a decent discussion. A poll is a smart way to do it, but with few options. The one RfC that was started as a poll was started with ~20 options, which is just not going to work. Do a two-stage RfC and you might finally find a consensus for the title. But going settling on an option with 50% support due to poorly formed RMs exhaustively trying every option, and then having a closer who "strongly opposed" the then-current title, is just awfully dubious and doesn't indicate there's any consensus for this title at all. Our consensus processes only work if there's an appearance of qualified and neutral evaluation, which there isn't here. The next question is what kind of overturn it should be. Due to the time lapsed and frankly the procedural mess of that discussion, it should just be closed as no consensus. I don't really mind if the title is kept as it is now (which is stable) or returned to storming, but either way, a no consensus outcome opens the door for someone to draft a proper RfC. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
    It’s much more than 50% on both. —-В²C 06:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
    Is it? There's 28 supports, 30 opposes. I might be off by a couple here or there, since I'm just skimming and not reading thoroughly enough as if I were going to close it, but that's roughly 50/50. After adjustments for qualified comments in both directions, it remains a similar proportion. Obviously no consensus for the move in my eyes, and that the closer found the then-current title of storming as objectionable perhaps influenced their desire to close it as consensus for move. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
    This is a tricky case. Skimming doesn’t cut it. I counted. From my June 2 !vote comments:

    I reviewed the discussion and found “attack” clearly favored over “storming” by 27, “storming” favored over “attack” by 19, and 12 explicitly neutral or unspecified on this question. Without counting I also recognized a strong preference for “2021” over “January 6”. In fact, the broad opposition to the “January 6” portion of the title made reading consensus here a bit of a challenge

    В²C 17:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
    Well, I did count, just not with as much scrutiny as if I were going to attach my name to the close. I didn't get a number like yours. I disagree with the idea that an "Oppose, January 6th is poor" is equivalent to a neutral on the rest, given that RMs tend to be single-issue & all-or-nothing (ie, if the RM fails on one aspect, it usually fails entirely). Obviously there are exceptions, but it's entirely legitimate to make the simplest argument necessary for the debate. So I suspect your methodology, which I disagree with, is why our numbers are different. If consensus is not ascertainable due to a poor proposal, then usually (& almost always in a contentious topic area like this) it should be closed as NC, rather than the closer trying to compensate for what they think people would've said. (No offence to the proposer, of course; I make poor proposals all the time too.) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
    Not sure why you said, “I disagree with the idea that an ‘Oppose, January 6th is poor’ is equivalent to a neutral on the rest”. Who has that idea? Anyway, the proposal was to change exactly two separate aspects of the title—“attack” to “storming”, and “2021” to “January 6”—not “the rest”. You can reasonably infer support, opposition or neutrality for each aspect independently in each !vote. It’s not close on either aspect. But it does take close scrutiny. The closer did it. And so did I. —В²C 06:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
    Okay, here’s a typical “Oppose”:
    • Oppose I don't feel there is a clear WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources yet, so this is an exercise in picking the least-bad interim name. Per my comments above, I oppose having "January 6" in the title and not having 2021 - the year is more important in all contexts that aren't saturated with Trump stuff already. Neutral on "attack", if I had to pick a word between "protest" and "insurrection" I would pick "unrest" but attack is an improvement over "storming". User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
    This is clearly opposing, thus favoring the original title 2021 storming of the United States Capitol over the proposed January 6 United States Capitol attack. But if you’re skimming you might not notice they oppose because of the change from 2021 to January 6, and add that “attack is an improvement over ‘storming’". So a reasonable careful reading finds support for a move to 2021 United States Capitol attack. There are many like this and ultimately I found a clear consensus favoring the change to “attack” but not the ”January 6” part. —В²C 09:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
    As I say, I disagree with the methodology. It's unclear what your methodology does about votes like:
    • Oppose. Injecting the date rather than the year into the title is a terrible idea. I also prefer "storming" to "attack", as it is a much better descriptor for what actually happened. There is also no definitive common name/term for this event. Various terms have been used, including "storming", "riot", "protest", "attack", "insurrection", "mob", "demonstration", "assault", "rebellion", etc. Rreagan007 (talk)
    • Oppose but open to alternatives. ~ HAL333
    • Oppose. For the longevity of this topic including "2021" is the most ideal and accurate title for this. JalenPhotos2
    I consider all those full opposes, even though (for example) the latter two don't specify which part they're opposing. I assume your methodology classes those as explicitly neutral or unspecified on this question.
    I agree there are some opposes that can be considered supports, such as:
    • Oppose proposed title, maybe move to 2021 United States Capitol attack instead. The problem with "January 6th" or "January 6" is that it is missing information about what year the attack was in. It could even be interpreted so that this were an annually recurring event.
    And I classed them as such in my count. I suspect the discrepancy between your count and my count is not due to level of scrutiny but due to a different methodology of assessing opposes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
    • opposes 2021 to January 6 (prefers 2021); opposes storming to attack
    • opposes 2021 to January 6 (prefers 2021); opposes storming to attack
    • opposes 2021 to January 6 (prefers 2021); unknown on storming to attack
    • opposes 2021 to January 6 (prefers 2021); supports storming to attack
    В²C 15:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.


Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2021 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2020 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2019 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2018 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2017 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2014 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

See alsoEdit