Kshmr – Decision endorsed — most seem to feel that either the close was a reasonable interpretation of the discussion that occurred (and thus was fine) or that points raised in the discussion were inaccurate based on the sources they found (and that should mean the close was not fine). *RVs are more for evaluating the close itself and the closer's discretion rather than rehashing or extending the original discussion (i.e., *RVs are about whether the closer was procedurally wrong in how they closed it or clearly misinterpreted the underlying policies/guidelines in context). While there's definitely disagreement as to how those guidelines should be interpreted based on the sources at hand (I'm not entirely sure it's currently the right title, either), I don't feel that the discussion below demonstrates consensus that the close itself was procedurally incorrect (i.e., the closer felt there wasn't clear consensus to move the page, so it was not moved; there isn't clear consensus here that not moving the page was the wrong action to take). Obviously this doesn't preclude another RM down the line (presumably with more eyes/input the next time). slakr\ talk / 03:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The closure is unreasonable because the arguments for supporting the move are stronger than the opposes. The support-oppose ratio is 3:5 but there should be more due weight assigned for the support votes that are policy-based than the oppose votes that are based on the MoS which does not explicitly support the spelling of the current title. Overturn or relist. The editor whose username is Z0 18:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse one of the most reasonable closes I have seen in a while. The interplay of policy, guidelines, naming conventions, and MOS is difficult and complex, and it is up to the participants in the RM to determine how they interact with the specific title. The participants here decided to appeal to the logic of the MOS, which while not strictly part of the title policy, is certainly worth considering. They also gave significantly stronger arguments in my opinion that were supported by sourcing and logic and sourcing. There is no possible other way this could be closed, and since all the arguments were played out, a relist would have been ridiculous. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. (Uninvolved) Per TonyB, this close was righteous. There was much passion shown by supporters; however, the rationales of the opposers carried. Painiusput'r there 19:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn or relist. I've looked at this one, and had a scan of the sources, and I've got to be honest, with all due respect to some of those opposing and to the two endorses above, I think the "oppose" voters have called it wrong and the consensus should probably have gone with the much stronger arguments of the supporters. Other than a few rare exceptions, sources online are absolutely overwhelming in using "KSHMR" rather than "Kshmr" or "Kashmir" for this person, so this is a very clear example where the "Do not invent new styles that are not used by independent sources" clause form MOS:TM kicks in - and those in support of the move made this point in the discussion. Yes, there were a few examples presented in the discussion, but those were from fringe publications and deviated clearly from the overwhelming majority of other sources, a point which was made several times in rebuttal, and which was never addressed by the closer. When the proposer of the move made valid policy and MOS-based points, for which opposers didn't have a policy or guideline answer, regarding sourcing and common names, those points were often rebutted with unWP:CIVIL responses such as as "You do not even understand the policies you are thumping like a bible and preaching about." or "The fact that you continue to "believe" you are correct when someone with may more experience at you says otherwise is indicative of the problem here. It's a personality problem, not a titles or policy problem". Ridiculous and un-called-for rudeness given the weakness of the opposers arguments. Examples of the poor oppose rationales include:
"not an acronym, unlike LMFAO, just a stylism for Kashmir (DJ)" - irrelevant because there is no rule that non-acronyms are not capitalised if the sources call for it.
"It absolutely, positively is "marketing caps" stylization" - it's not just marketing stylization if the sources follow suit. See also eBay, SMERSH, vi etc. for other examples where we depart from our usual MOS with regards to caps because all the sources do so.
"Otherwise we would immediately move Sony to SONY to mimic their logo" - this case has nothing in common with Sony, as reliable sources and even the company's legal name don't typically present it in all caps. That really is a stylization, hence why we don't use it.
"In this case, the all-caps appears to be an invention of editors who are either trying to boost their favourite pet, or being just careless" - no. In fact the opposite is the case. The Kshmr form is the invention of editors, given that the fact that almost no reputable sources use that form. I normally think we should stick to our MOS wherever there's any doubt, but this is one of those few cases where there isn't much doubt. — Amakuru (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think those would be strong arguments at an RM, but I disagree with your assessment of the consensus at the discussion. The consensus there was that the name was Kashmir, and that he was stylizing it without vowels. I also disagree that the supporting arguments in the RM were more persuasive: the points were talking past one another and the COMMONNAME point doesn't address the issue of this not being an acronym but being a stylization of another word. Based on the discussion, I don't see how Primefac could have closed it any other way. Your argument here might be grounds for a new RM in a few months. A relist is a possibility, but I'm not sure an additional week relisting, even with your position above, would change the outcome beyond no consensus, which would end in the same result. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well perhaps you're right, but I'm not sure I've actually made any new points in my argument above, most of them were made by those in support, and the "talking past each other" was mainly because those in opposition were engaging in personal attacks and unfounded assertions rather than actually giving policy-based reasons why the points made in support were wrong. If consensus is a battle to see who can shout the loudest and boast the longest record at RM, then sure, there was no other way to close it. But if the arguments made are verified and viewed through a lens of policy, then the supports should have carried the day. — Amakuru (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you made it more clearly and actually addressed the points. Consensus is not a shouting match, but when there are valid points being made you need to take them into consideration even if the form they are written in is non-ideal (and I think those in opposition did make valid points, even if you can argue against them) There may have been some behavior that was less than ideal there, but I still think the arguments made on the oppose side had value to the point where even if we were to weight the support ones higher because of policy (which I'm not yet convinced we should have) this would have ended as no consensus and not a relist as most of the issues had been fleshed out. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni: what were the good arguments of the oppose side? I barely see any, apart from the appeal to three fringe publications to back up the claim that occasional sources do decapitalise this name. So perhaps you could use those three to make an exception but I just don't think it's enough to counter the well-reasoned and policy-based arguments made in support. The notion that we don't capitalise according to sources per WP:COMMONNAME, and SMcCandlish's self-written essay at WP:COMMONSTYLE, cited below, which attempts to establish that as a guideline, is quite simply false. eBay, iPhone and SMERSH are good examples of that, and I'm sure I could come up with others. MOS:TM is crystal clear on this matter - we don't make up stylizations that aren't found in sources, and the only argument you could make against that is those three fringe sources do call it Kashmir. But neither you nor the closer have said that the close was no-consensus because of the three fringe sources, instead you're saying the close was crystal clear not-moved. It really wasn't, in my view. Anyway, it does'nt look like this MRV has much legs, so perhaps I will come back in 3-6 months and see if I can make a better case for moving. Thanks again for your reasoned responses. — Amakuru (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, and this is already open as a broader discussion at WT:Manual of Style/Trademarks. I'll repeat what I just posted on the closer's talk page in response to the same party who opened this MR: "the oppose votes weren't based on policy and their comments were just their opinions" is blatant misrepresentation and just plain ol' projection. The supporters of the "KSHMR" over-capitalization are simply sorely misunderstanding WP:POLICY, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:GAMING. We do not, ever, pit one set of WP rules again the other in an attempt to WP:WIN, but always interpret them together in the sensible way that produces a compatible result, following their intended meaning, not lawyerish attempts to twist their wording. "I like this rule better because it's a policy, and that other one is just a guideline" is ass-backwards thinking at WP. It simply does not work that way. But the situation here is far worse. What happened was the "KSHMR" boosters saw one sense of the word "trademark" in WP:AT, referring to organizations and their products/services, and addressing one thing and one thing only: spelling (i.e., "do not respell it 'Kashmir' because you think that would be better English"). They wanted to apply some of the wording there over-broadly in two different ways: to individuals, and to all style matters of any kind, such as capitalization. But AT is not, never has been, and never will be a style policy. In another (MoS) page, they saw a completely different usage of the word "trademark", explicitly broadened to include individuals, yet specifically saying not to mimic capitalization gimmicks and other logo stylization. These rules are not in conflict in any way at all. So, they simultaneously tried to import the very different MoS definition and scope (with a reversed result) into the AT rule and declare the MoS rules invalid. This is just so logically fallacious it should be in a textbook as an example of reasoning failure. It's about the same as simultaneously arguing that a local ordinance should be ruthlessly enforced nationwide (but in perverted form), and arguing that the reason to do so is because it's supposedly an unconstitutional and invalid law (but really isn't). It's not just a reasoning failure, but a cascading series of them. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 00:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse—per RM discussion. Tony(talk) 02:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – the winning arguments and the close aligned with wikipedia's longstanding practice of avoiding unnecessary caps, caps for style/attention, and such. It's OK that Kshmr styles Kashmir by omitting the vowels to make his trademark, and we respect his spelling; and it's OK that he styles it with all caps, but we don't have to, just as others don't have to and some don't. These arguments were all made and weighed, and the article what left where it was. Dicklyon (talk) 06:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse RM result of "not moved", with the caveat that a "no consensus" reading would have in my opinion better reflected the discussion (with the same outcome). But notwithstanding the OP's bludgeoning of the original discussion, there is no way this request could have been closed with a move to all-caps. Obviously, I also agree with my esteemed colleague Amakuru that consensus can change, and there may be a future path to moving to all-caps after 6–12 months, if indeed most sources consistently apply this style. — JFGtalk 14:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy relist or allow fresh RM. While I don't think that Primefac could have closed it differently based on the discussion at hand, the debate was a classic example of a shouting contest. I don't see much "arguments made and weighed" there, but more of a "because MOS!" points by, erm, usual suspects, that did not examine the evidence and sources even in passing. My thanks to Amakuru for being a voice of reason. No such user (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Allow relist per Amakuru. There is a certain hardcore "house style guidelines always win" viewpoint which has gotten Wikipedia into trouble before, most infamously with deadmau5 and ~*~StAr TrEk into DaRkNeSs~*~. I'm not familiar with this artist, but this looks suspiciously similar from a quick look at the sources. Per Amakuru, supporters were making a strong argument based on Wikipedia guidelines that, whenever tested in publicized cases, tend to generate overwhelming support for the name as it is used in reliable sources rather than the house style guidelines. This MR was low-turnout enough that it's worth another look. SnowFire (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Except neither of those cases "got Wikipedia into trouble", they were just argued about a lot for a while; nice attempt to appeal to consequences, though. Interestingly, and despite what you're trying to imply, none of the current WP:AT/WP:MOS regulars that I know of would be in favor of moving Deadmau5 to "Deadmaus", or moving Star Trek into Darkness to "Star Trek: Into Darkness", which is what those old fights were about. The first, because the actually correct interpretation of WP:TITLETM is (and only is) to not do spelling substitutions, so "Deadmaus" would be against policy given that virtually no sources refer to him as that. The second because there's no evidence the title is or ever was "Star Trek: Into Darkness"; that was just an incorrect assumption by people going by the earlier films' names, and not counting on the fact that the makers of the newer film (which hadn't even been released yet when that squabble started) were playing on words and conventions a bit, which we now know to be true (i.e., it was a WP:V and WP:NOR matter of people advancing their assumptions as if they were sourced facts). So, they're not comparable at all to "Kshmr" vs. "KSHMR" (it's false equivalence, via the incomplete comparison tactic of avoiding crucial differences that demonstrate that the analogy is faulty and superficial). The only way in which they're conceptually comparable is "I love to mimic logos", which is a) what MOS:TM says not to do and b) what WP:TITLETM in WP:AT doesn't authorize us to do (no matter how badly a handful of people want to try to warp its meaning). You, and No such user, and the opener of this MR are engaging in a double guilt by association fallacy with a topping of appeal to spite, which boils down to "The close must be wrong because MoS types support it, and they piss me off", plus "The close must be wrong because it's about funky trademarks and someone somewhere was wrong about another funky trademark once upon a time". Not valid reasoning. PS: I also detect inflation of conflict at work here (attempt to discredit what a group of opponents say and agree upon, on the bogus basis that they have not always unanimously agreed about everything). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 06:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I advocate for application of MoS myself whenever in doubt (and have asked for your and "MoS types" advice on style more than once), and I don't dislike the "MoS types" until they start exhibiting en bloc voting like here based on virtually no evidence. In the RM, statements by Tony1 the all-caps appears to be an invention of editors, Dicklyon The current version is common enough in sources and Andrewa The existing name is well attested in sources seem pulled straight out of the ass; out of 41 references in the article, title-case "Kshmr" appears only once, and when you examine it you see that the original is actually written uppercase [1]. To your credit, you did dig up three sources from India (!) that downcase it, but frankly, calling thatwell attested in sources is WP:ILIKEIT bullshit of worst sort. No such user (talk) 10:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's the rub, though. Any time people who read and follow MoS agree, someone who wants a variance they can't quite justify enough to gain consensus can just declare there's a conspiracy. WP doesn't work that way, or every actual consensus could be dismissed as a bloc vote for something that one doesn't personally buy into. And this isn't an "evidence" matter, it's a rules applicability one. The policy in question is about spelling (only), and just with regard to commercial organizations and their products/services, and it wants a frequency analysis (evidence), because it's ultimately just WP:COMMONNAME in a TM-specific application. COMMONNAME isn't a style policy either; it's the policy that tells us the name is "Kshmr" (in one stylization or another) rather than "Kashmir" or "Rmhsk" or "Niles Hollowell-Dhar". The style (capitalization, etc.) guideline isn't calling for a frequency analysis, and just doesn't want us to mimic over-stylization of trademarks or anything like them, unless the "plain English" version is pretty much unattested in any RS, with all of them using the stylization with essentially uniform consistency. We don't have that in this case, only consistency in the entertainment publications, which have a WP:INDY problem: they're almost all dependent on media (music, film, etc.) advertising dollars, and bend over backwards to mimic logos all the time to keep their revenue source as happy as possible, even at the cost of really stupid-looking output not used in any other genre or register (like capitalizing a/an or in or of in the middle of a song title just to make it look like how it was printed on the over-capitalized, attention-screaming CD cover). Basically, we've been over this hundreds times. Again and again we see RMs to over-capitalize (or something else unnecessary, from bogus superscripting to mëtal umlaüts to backwards letters and so on) with the name of some entertainment-industry output or producer thereof. SSDD, and the answer's always the same: not on Wikipedia. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 11:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a hostile reading of my comment, SMcCandlish, which was not remotely intended? I'm not alleging conspiracy, or inflating conflict, or trying to use an occasional exception to mean that lol the rules mean nothing let's do whatever we want. The oppose votes are all fine and good faith. It's ridiculous I have to say this, but to any "MOS types" reading this, I am not spiteful, I am happy for your input it and encourage it, I certainly don't reflexively oppose all MOS-arguments, and don't take what SMcCandlish wrote about me seriously. As I said, this issue strikes me as the type of case where low-turnout can have different results than high-turnout, which is a solid reason to bring a case to Move Review.
As far as "appeal to consequences", uh, yes? If said consequences are "Wikipedia looking silly and getting articles written up on the Internet making fun of those crazy editors who debate obvious issues and still get it wrong, hahaha," followed by the article moving to the spot anyway. ("When it comes to world class pedantry, few groups can challenge the prowess of Wikipedians...") But even if this guy is too minor for that to happen, doesn't he deserve the same treatment that a prominent musician would from WP:TITLETM? This is a perfectly high road justification.
Also, apologies if you were intentionally trolling, but FWIW, if you're claiming that "none of the MOS regulars would support moving away from Star Trek into Darkness", uh, that was the bad title that absolutely no sources used, and was roundly criticized by rando-editors who knew the movie but not the MOS. I would hope that would be considered a mistake in retrospect. It's also directly comparable to this case, since that was a case of the MOS suggesting at the time that "Into" should be de-capped as "into", but absolutely no sources backing that capitalization up. SnowFire (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)unless the "plain English" version is pretty much unattested in any RS – And there's another other rub: no, I don't think that it's enough to pull a couple of "reliable sources" from a random location that use the "plain English" version and then claim the victory. To default to MoS, you need to demonstrate that there is an actual mixture of styles "in the wild", and in absence of that we should go along with the majority of sources, lest we astonish our readers and look like an outlier in the world. Where's the threshold for this being called a "mixture" is a gray area, but three Indian newspapers do not make one in my book. We do have the "deadmau5 standard" to use as precedent. No such user (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reclose (clarify and expland the closing statement. Is that a consensus or a no concensus, allowing a renomination after six or two months? The non explanation is woefully inadequate. The close should be understandable at face value to non-RM-regular Wikipedians. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin comment - at the time of the close I felt the result was clear enough that I did not need to add further explanation, but it seems that it is not as cut-and-dry as I initially thought, so I have expanded my close with additional rationale. Primefac (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: thank you for adding the explanation, but there is one thing there which I think is incorrect. You said "with the opposition also using the Manual of Style to support their position", but the support camp cited the MOS in the very first response to the first oppose, saying: WP:TRADEMARK and WP:COMMONNAME states that "when deciding how to format a trademark, editors should examine styles already in use by independent sources...Do not invent new styles that are not used by independent sources". That comment not only quotes the MOS, it quotes it correctly, which the oppose votes do not. Respectfully I think you have made an error here, in interpreting the discussion, and I'd ask you to please reconsider your close. At the very least it should be relisted so we can continue this discussion properly at the RM. Thanks. — Amakuru (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will not contest the outcome of this review. Primefac (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and polite request to the closer of this MRV - I've changed my !vote above from "overturn or relist" to just plain "relist". Obviously I respect the opinions of my colleagues above who say that the conversation in the RM is sufficiently confused that a "moved" decision could not be undertaken. I don't necessarily agree with that, because to my eyes Z0 made the arguments as well as they could, given the rudeness and refusal to listen of those in opposition. But since there's clearly no appetite for a close-as-move, I'd like to please request the closer here to allow a relist of the RM, as myself and a couple of others have suggested above. Generally, if decisions are made which don't make sense to me, I like to understand why, and as such I think there is more to say on this subject in the RM. I didn't participate in the original RM myself, so at the very least would like the chance to put a "support" vote in during a relist, and discuss the point further. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 08:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of !voting, I'd like to ping closer Primefac with a question. You closed with the majority, the majority provided good persuasive arguments, and they provided three links as persuasive evidence that "Kshmr" and "KSHMR" are merely alternate styling by various sources. I almost surely would have closed the same way. I was about to !vote endorse. But as a last step, I checked on the opposing claim that sources used "KSHMR" effectively 100% of the time. I went to Google News search for Kshmr and I scanned all 333 hits. I only found 9 using lowercase. That's 97.3% KSHMR vs 2.7% Kshmr. The argument for KSHMR merely being a "styling" suddenly looks rather weak, and the claim that sources use KSHMR effectively 100% of the time is looking rather solid. That leaves me in a conundrum - your close appears to be both reasonable and potentially wrong? Do these figures impact your closing analysis? Alsee (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, I did a GNews search of various combinations of terms, and results ranged between about 10% and went as high as about 40% depending on what got searched for. Location and language could also affect the search. It's certainly possible to have a "reasonable but wrong" close of a discussion, but I guess that's what MRV is for. I based my close on the arguments presented, and as you say the majority provided good persuasive arguments - a rebuttal was never given with stats or other metrics to indicate the links provided might have been the exception rather than the rule. I still stick by my close based on that, but I can see how other arguments could be made that might tip the balance. Primefac (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Just as Alsee has said above, a simple Google search will show that an overwhelming majority uses the term "KSHMR" when referring to the artist (reliable sources with Billboard, Dancing Astronaut, Rolling Stone showing that this is the case). One can argue that it's a stylicisation, but this isn't something like A$AP rocky where the dollar sign equals to a S. An example, Billboard uses "ASAP" while referring to the artist, thus proving that it's an attention-calling stylicisation. This is not the case for KSHMR, where "KSHMR" refers to the artist in whole, and shouldn't be in lowercase for the sake of some vague Wikipedia policy. Listeners know him as "KSHMR", rather than an invented "Kshmr" which is never used by reliable sources when referring to him. Like I've said earlier, this case can be compared to the LMFAO page, where the group's name isn't a stylicisation, but the actual term for the group. You don't see sources describing the group as "Lmfao", so why shouldn't this be the case here? aNode(discuss) 16:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex – Restore to Meghan Markle. This move review is confusing to follow, but we have clear consensus on key elements: (1) that Jimbo Wales's move through protection was out of process, (2): that weighing this background, the strength of argument, etc., there was no consensus in the RM that the new title was preferable, and (3) given that, the article should be restored to its stable title. I'll note that the article has already been restored; this close just formalizes what has already occurred. Cúchullaint/c 21:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Comment for those unfamiliar with move review. This discussion may draw a lot of eyes that have not been to move review before. Please be sure to read the instructions at the top of the page before commenting here. In particular, the instructions state 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. 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 Requested Move discussion." This means comments that base support for endorsing or overturning upon whether or not the topic of the article "is still called Meghan Markle" or "is now the Duchess of Sussex" are not appropriate in this section. This discussion is specifically about the close. When commenting, please be sure to identify whether you were involved or uninvolved in the original RM discussion. Dekimasuよ! 16:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, there's a bit of a constitutional crisis now playing out at AN, as a result of an RM closer's extremely unusual close. As background, Jimbo decided to move this page unilaterally and without discussion, and since this was obviously controversial, an RM was opened for community review. The ensuing RM came up with a near 2/3 supermajority endorsing the move (by my count it was 110-60 in support). Most admins would interpret the discussion as having yielded a relatively strong consensus, IMO, but the closer claimed there was in fact a minority consensus to overturn the move. They then further complicated things by claiming the consensus could not be enacted because Jimbo can't be overruled. Now, people are calling for Jimbo to be desysopped. The debate over Jimbo's role aside, I believe this controversy is fabricated by a blatantly bad reading of consensus in the first place. The close was akin to a supervote and needs to be overturned. No overarching policy justification was provided for throwing out an overwhelming majority view, apart from the closer's vague claim that the minority !voters had 'stronger arguments'. People are discussing how to implement the reading of consensus given the controversial role of Jimbo in all this, but I believe the reading of consensus itself was dead wrong. As an uninvolved admin, I think there's a strong consensus to endorse the move, and the initial reading of a minority consensus here was either incompetent or abusive. Swarm♠ 00:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In what way are you uninvolved? You have previously expressed an opinion on how very good Jimbo's move is and on the very consensus for the move: " . . . Perhaps Jimbo still believed in those ideals, and we've greatly let him down. Perhaps it was just an ego-fueled power play. But given the overwhelming community consensus backing it, the move itself was a good one. . . . Swarm ♠ 00:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)" [2] -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 05:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was my assessment of consensus as an uninvolved administrator, hence why I requested this move review. Assessing a consensus as an uninvolved admin does not make one involved. Swarm♠ 19:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are not neutral you have already expressed a non-neutral claim about a week ago. You explicitly endorsed the move because Jimbo made it, you have said we should defer to Jimbo. You are totally involved. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I actually am neutral that I don't have an opinion on the move, and I am also uninvolved in that I have never become involved or stated an opinion in the requested move itself. You're referring to me opposing a page move ban for Jimbo, which I did not do based on any involvement in the move or requested move itself, but based on a reading of consensus as an uninvolved administrator. Your thinly-veiled attempt to manipulate this discussion by falsely accusing me of being involved and lying about it is even more vapid in integrity and honesty as the reading of a minority consensus itself. Swarm♠ 20:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. There is nothing veiled here, nor is there anything to do with your false charges. A week ago, you pronounced Jimbo's move good, making clear your express opinion on the move and committing your opinion to Jimbo's choice of title, and telling others to give him deference. Now, you decided to open this move review by calling Dr. Kay incompetent or abusive just because he has the temerity to find differently, so you'll have to look in the mirror with respect to your false charges. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not WP:INVOLVED, because opening an MR is not an administrative action. It may be non-neutral, but 99.9% of MRs are opened by people with a strong opinion. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
True, there's no reason for someone to be uninvolved when they open a move review, but I think what Alan was questioning was that Swarm explicitly declared themselves to be uninvolved in the nomination statement. The blurb above says "As an uninvolved admin, I think there's a strong consensus to endorse the move", but it seems like they were not just an impartial observer of the discussion, as they had previously expressed strong approval for the move when Jimbo first made it. — Amakuru (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsethe closethe nom’s contention that there was a consensus in support of the move, the heavily participated discussion shows consensus to not reverse Jimbo’s rename. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean 'overturn the aspect of the close that said that there was a consensus to reverse the move, and leave the page where it is as a result'; 'endorse the entire close, including the consensus that there was a consensus to reverse the move'; or 'endorse the fact that the closure didn't ultimately reverse the move, and ignore the finding that there was a consensus to reverse the move because it doesn't matter?' I'm not being facetious - Swarm is asking us to overturn the finding that there was a consensus to move, so your endorsement and reason contradict each other, and I can see this MRV getting very confusing very fast if people use "endorse" to mean two contradictory things. --Aquillion (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I read the RM and I read a consensus to not move back. That is a de facto consensus in support of the move, although technically different but same outcome. I endorse the status quo and think that nothing should be done. I’d recommend a short moratorium before a fresh RM, if that’s what some want. Give it a few weeks for new sources to show what the future is. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC). Modified !vote[reply]
Relist Reclose. Firstly, this discussion has nothing to do Jimbo. Secondly, the closure was silly - the closing admin did not follow through on what he or she judged to be the consensus, presumably out of fear. I note the table at Wikipedia:Move review lists various possibilities for move review and all of them assume that "RM Closers Decision" is identical to "Article Title Action at RM Close" - it is unheard of for an admin to decide that the consensus is for a move and then not move it! So the only sensible way forward is to relist reclose - not because there needs to be further discussion, but so that an admin who has the courage to follow through on his or her convictions can provide some resolution. Personally, I don't think there was a clear consensus, and I initially !voted oppose before striking my !vote. But that's neither here nor there. StAnselm (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC) Edited per following comments which better expressed what I was getting at. StAnselm (talk) 08:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relist or re-close so someone else can do it, the situation is hopelessly muddled at this point and the best thing to do is to go back to the drawing board to get a clear consensus. If relisted, I suggest that the relisted version be closed by three admins (so nobody can claim it's a supervote) and only by admins who are unambiguously willing to reverse the move if that's what the consensus says. I don't feel that it's particularly likely that Jimbo would pursue any further actions if he were reversed in that fashion (he hasn't indicated he was acting in any sort of official fashion, and AFAIK hasn't objected to the discussion of reversing him if someone finds a consensus to do so), but if so we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Either way the first thing to do is to relist things and get a more clear consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question: And if there is a no consensus move back too? Per Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Determining_consensus, "However, sometimes a requested move is filed in response to a recent move from a long existing name that cannot be undone without administrative help. Therefore, if no consensus has been reached, the closer should move the article back to the most recent stable title." and WP:NOCONSENSUS too, "When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted.") Alanscottwalker (talk) 05:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously a no consensus outcome would lead to it being reversed, yes. Also, I edited my comment to note that a new closure of the existing discussion by a different admin (or group of admins) would probably also be fine. --Aquillion (talk) 06:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The reason I asked is that some have seemed to argue that it's not obvious that a 'no consensus' would result in moving back to before Jimbo's 'out-of-process' move. But the rules do seem to be that a 'no consensus' close would be moving back to before Jimbo's move. Alanscottwalker (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse a no consensus and move back to Meghan Markle Like I said on AN, a consensus the other way is tough to call but a no consensus is the clear result. If "Most admins would interpret the discussion as having yielded a relatively strong consensus", then I'm thankful that most of them don't close RM discussions, because my guess is that a most of the regular RM admin closers (with Dekimasu already saying a no consensus) and even lot of the non-admin RM closers, the ones who discount policyfree !votes would close for no consensus. Per WP:RMCI ("However, sometimes a requested move is filed in response to a recent move from a long existing name that cannot be undone without administrative help. Therefore, if no consensus has been reached, the closer should move the article back to the most recent stable title."), and normal procedure at WP:RM, we return to the stable title when there is no consensus.
I really hope I don't need to explain why WP:OFFICIALNAME !votes can be discounted, or ones that cite British royalty as supreme or whatever. In here, they have no power, and our WP:TITLE policy is supreme.
Either that or reclose as per Aquillion, but I don't see a need to drag this out for another 7 days with a relist, that is unlikely to generate much more than acrimony. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC) noting I did !vote support for moving to Meghan Markle in the RM discussion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as no consensus, but Overturn to move back to Meghan Markle - Wikipedia is a "rule of law" community - our guidelines tell us how to approach this and the closer hasn't completed the task (and I don't blame them) of following through with the WP:RMCI. A no-consensus decision defaults to returning the article to the last stable title. I wish our rule was to just do that before a RM proceeds, so as to make a move discussion less muddied with objections to the out-of-process move. I don't see a need to relist. If this review results in it being moved back to Meghan Markle, and a superuser moves it back again, then at least we've held true to our guidelines. -- Netoholic@ 06:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re-close or re-list. Let's be clear that a Jimbo move is not irreversible, unless Jimbo has specifically said so (as he might do with an 'office' action). It's quite nice sometimes to have someone who can cut out the crap, but he won't claim to be infallible. In his comments in the move discussion, where he explained his reasons for the move, he clearly spelled out that it would be for others to decide. This alone makes it a bad close. It also doesn't make it easy for anyone else to move the article. If a non-admin had legitimately reached the same conclusion about the consensus, but left out the stuff about Jimbo, I don't think many admins would hesitate to move the article whence it came (even if it caused another discussion). Obviously I don't recommend a non-admin closure. Either the closing admin needs to move the article, or another closure is needed. It's not good enough to say it needs to be moved and that we can't move it. This is not a recognised outcome. Like Swarm I'd also question whether the closer feels a bit conflicted about the closure, so if they're not going to move it then let's just see if someone else comes to the same conclusion. But please leave out the stuff about Jimbo this time because it's not an issue. (I'm un-involved) -- zzuuzz(talk) 06:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re-Close/Endorse/Implement the close/Whatever means return to status quo ante and figure it out after the dust from the needless charlie-foxtrot caused by Jimbo wanting to "have fun". The closer did not follow policy in that they determined what the outcome should be yet did not implement the consensus they found so endorse does not really work but I think they made a reasonable finding based on policy. (See my comment below [3]). Pretty much any proper outcome here would require moving the article back to its original title. A no consensus re-close would mean returning to the original title as would implementing the close made. The question is whether an immediate fresh RM should be started or whether this closes finding of consensus for COMMONNAME should stand and the issue only be revisited after several months. I do not think any reasonable reading of the policy backed arguments in the original RM can justify a finding of consensus to move. @Jimbo Wales:this disruption right here is why you must follow Wikipedia's policies and procedures just like everyone else. We can not take your founder bit but the community can and at sometime will take your admin bit if you abuse it like this again. It would be best all around if you simply resign your bit for your personal account and have a 'Jimbo Wales (WMF)' account with admin and other advanced permissions which you can use for official/office/'it shall be so because I say so' edits. This will remove the ambiguity of authority and intention which led to this, entirely avoidable, drama. It would also be seen as an act of good faith by the segments of the community which feel, based on action like this, you are somehow more equal than everyone else. Please consider this. Jbh Talk 06:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 17:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as no consensus and move back to Meghan Markle or re-close as per Galobtter. This is a GF and necessary Move Review by Swarm. Nonetheless, I believe DrKay was correct in finding a consensus, though I would suggest it was right on the edge between consensus/no consensus and, out of a preponderance of caution, a no consensus endorsement should be made. While there was a strong majority in favor of maintaining the move, I believe DrKay made a reasonable evaluation on the strength of argument. There was a plethora of well-intentioned !votes to maintain the move, however, a seemingly large portion were from accounts less than 30 days old, IP editors, or SPAs. Obviously, these types of accounts should be welcome, however, a closer inspection of the rationale offered by drive-thru accounts see a great number of WP:VAGUEWAVEs, WP:CRYSTALBALL arguments, or - in a number of novel cases - arguments apparently based on Windsor House Law, rather than arguments based on WP policy. I quote a small selection here:
... we should do her the honour of using her new title ...
The Duchess has risen above the ranks of the plethora of female actresses.
...any arguments about WP policy and even user consensus, frankly, are irrelevant when faced with such historic officialdom. Basically, the Queen's vote wins.
... change Wikipedia:COMMONNAME to include an exception for British royalty.
Can we legitimately consider declarations of these types to be equal in value to policy-based reasons for reversal? (On the secondary question of founder omnipotence raised via the close, I take no position.)
EndorseRe-close as no consensus and move back to Meghan Markle – In their reading of the discussion, the closer accurately noted that policy arguments favored the apparent common name "Meghan Markle" but that a large number of editors also approved of Jimbo's out-of-process move. Had I evaluated the same discussion, I would have concluded "no consensus" and advised to wait a few months until we can determine whether the common name has been changed by real-world usage. See for reference the discussions about Dnipro when the city's name was officially changed from "Dnepropetrovsk" but the English Wikipedia flip-flopped[4] and eventually took a few monthsa full year to settle on the new name.[5] When faced with no consensus in a contested move, the usual process is to revert to the longstanding article title, without prejudice to a future move request for the new title. The fact that Jimbo is "having fun" by expressing personal deference to British royalty is totally irrelevant. Hence the article must be moved back to Meghan Markle, and an RM moratorium of 6 months should be advised. — JFGtalk 08:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC) Full disclosure: I have been totally uninvolved in prior discussions.[reply]
Comment The above statements already give clear demonstration of one of the reasons why we don't just deal in counting-up bolded ivotes, as Swarm argues for - you have to read them and the discussion. Multiple comments in the discussion on both sides actually did come to a clear consensus that Jimbo's move was out of process (something that is difficult to argue against, given the move protection Jimbo edited through). I did not ivote in the underlying discussion, although I did comment, but the 'Jimbo's move' side was basically devoid of any reference to reliable sources and the ones they did cite did not support Jimbo's move, Jimbo cited google trends which could only tell that "Meghan Markle" became famous as "Meghan Markle", and then became more famous as "Meghan Markle" - The other source was the royal website, which was somehow argued, "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" is her official name, even though it never uses that formulation -- even putting aside that there was controversy that, that could never be her name because it's a divorced or widow's style, we don't care about official name. Nor as already noted, do we predict the future -- as a tertiary source, we are not even suppose to be even a smidge ahead of sources Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse a no consensus and move back to Meghan Markle because policy-based !votes do get precedence over the fluff cited by Chetsford. Looking back over the discussion, very few of the !votes in favor of Jimbo's move are based on actual policy. Lepricavark (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at Meghan, Duchess of Sussex - 2/3 of editors at the Rfc, have endorsed Jimbo's moving the article. GoodDay (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the opposition at Harry's & Meghan's articles. Would look quite odd - having Prince William, Duke of Cambridge & Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, yet Prince Harry & Meghan Markle. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay, your pleas for consistency are awfully inconsistent. Let me remind you, once again, that you supported having Felipe VI of Spain and Queen Letizia of Spain, despite that looking much weirder than one couple differing from another. Surtsicna (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've no resistance, to changing the king's article to King Philip VI of Spain. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I find that "single-purpose" tagging unfair -- my vote was tagged as such, though I have made many contributions, but work in a sensitive area and so have a shifting IP. You don't know the situation, you shouldn't assume people come to stir up trouble; in any case, it's still a valid opinion and vote. 2A00:23C5:DE05:B000:B890:8873:8AAB:6ED (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I tagged both supporters and opposers of the move as SPAs; there is further explanation of this on my user talk page. SPA tagging is not an indication that an opinion will not be taken into consideration. For that matter, DrKay states that no !vote counting took place. Here, it is worth noting that GoodDay is an involved editor. Since the original comment here calls an RM an RfC here, I'm guessing GoodDay doesn't have a lot of experience with move review and isn't familiar with that convention. Like the SPA tagging, this research is intended to assist the eventual closer. Dekimasuよ! 08:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Step 1 in the move review process is to ask for clarification from the original closer (me). I was made aware of the discussions at AN and here but no-one asked me directly for clarification, and so I decided to keep quiet in the hope that the arguments would resolve themselves. That doesn't seem to be happening, and so I will make a statement here. My close stated that an out-of-process move had been performed by the founder using special rights during a move discussion and while the page was under move-protection but that the move should not be reversed. The opening party of the move review acknowledges that the original move was performed "unilaterally and without discussion" and "was obviously controversial", and agrees with me that the move should not be reversed. So, we are opening a move review to demand the same finding of fact (that it was an out-of-process move) and the same outcome (retain the current name) as decided in the closure but with a different explanation linking the two. That explanation appears to be that many more voters chose the current title than the old one. Well, I'll be quite honest: I didn't count the votes. That didn't seem wise given the number of new accounts and IPs commenting in the discussion. I made a conscious decision to write a more subtle and nuanced close than usual that would be clear in its finding of fact, give the outcome wanted by one side and give comfort to the other side who had strong arguments but would be unsuccessful in practice. I mistakenly thought that it would help to heal rifts if neither side was offered total victory. I was wrong, but I don't think I was wrong to try. I think my one regret is not mentioning Jimbo's argument (that an article title should reflect what a person is known for) in the closing statement. DrKay (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, an Rfc should be opened at WP:ROY, to settle once & for all, how to name articles of spouses of royalty. No matter how you cut the butter, it would look odd to have one article Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge & the other article as Meghan Markle. Also, Jimbo is correct about Meghan. She only became more notable, when she got involved with the British royal family. GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Possibly that is what you meant but what you wrote was "The best argument is one of common name, and evidence has been provided that the common name at the time of moving was (and for the moment seems to remain) "Meghan Markle". However, even though the logic of the arguments below favors the common name, Meghan Markle, we are faced with the fact that the page was moved by a user with special powers. Any attempt to undo the move by anyone other than the founder is likely to result in more disturbance and potential accusations of wheel-warring." This, on plain reading, says the move was out of process; the consensus favored common name (Meghan Markle) and the only reason not to move it back was Jimbo did it. This does not, in my mind, comport with what you said above which is that the discussion has consensus not to reverse it. Are we all misreading the close? Jbh Talk 14:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not particularly. There is a dichotomy in my close between justice (the arguments were stronger on one side and the page shouldn't have been moved beforehand) and pragmatism (Jimbo is in practice untouchable and moving the article back would have created a shitstorm). To give you my own opinion on where this discussion will go from where we are now, there are only two possible outcomes:
(1) the page is moved back. I think this will result in a new requested move either now or in the near future that will present better evidence than the last discussion (because by that time the style "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" will gain in popularity among reliable sources and it fulfils the requirements of WP:AT) and, I predict, a new request will attract fewer opponents because there will be less anger at the out-of-process unilateral move. Consequently, it is almost certain that the page will be moved to the current title. It's the same endpoint just along a longer and more tortuous road.
(2) re-opening the discussion so that it can be closed with the same finding of fact and the same outcome but with a different (but still substandard) rationale (that there was a majority for retention). It's the same endpoint just along a different path. It can't be reclosed with a better rationale (such as "because 'Meghan, Duchess of Sussex' is gaining in popularity among reliable sources and it fulfils the requirements of WP:AT") because closers aren't supposed to introduce new evidence not raised or shown in the discussion.
In neither case will the original article title be retained in the long run and in neither case will there be any action against the founder. DrKay (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your analysis in only one point "Jimbo is in practice untouchable". That 'finding' is far outside of community norms. I do not have a link but it was presented in the ANI thread, but the community expressly removed Jimbo's the administrative privileges of the founder bit and instead granted him an admin bit. This was in response to an out of process act on his part. So, if anything, the precedent is that Jimbo can be held responsible for violating our rules and establishing precedent otherwise in your close by expressly saying he is untouchable was, in my opinion, so wrong that we must demonstrate otherwise here. I appreciate the difficulty of making the close and I understand your desire to find rational compromise. I think. however, in doing so you magnified a single out of process administrative abuse, which could have been addressed by reversal, into a 'constitutional crisis' by de facto endorsing it. Jbh Talk 17:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the close, and implement the move back to the stable name "Meghan Markle" as the close found to be the consensus of well-founded policy-based arguments. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I commented in the move discussion, and am therefore an involved editor in this matter. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as no consensus to move, move back, wait a few weeks, then open an RM. This was moved out of process, and it should have been moved back immediately. WP:RM#CM is clear on this point: we hold RM discussions when "Someone could reasonably disagree with the move." In addition, it was moved through move protection; on 17 May 2018, NeilN added full move protection until 31 May, and at 03:47, 19 May, Zzyzx11 extended that to indefinite (protection log). Jimbo moved it through protection a few hours later at 11:15, 19 May; he may have done this without noticing the protection. The best solution would be for Jimbo to revert his move now, and for another RM to be held, preferably in a few weeks' time when news coverage of the name and title has settled down. SarahSV(talk) 15:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. (Uninvolved) – the closing statement seemed a bit long; however, had I closed this RM, the result would have been the same. As for Jimmy renaming the article without discussion, I've done that hundreds of times with little objection, and I'm not alone. If he ignored policy, who here hasn't? It appears to me that the RM upheld the page move to its present title. Let us all move on. There's nothing to see here. Painiusput'r there 15:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't made undiscussed moves through protection after previous title discussion on the talk page. I don't believe you would. Dekimasuよ! 02:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't made undiscussed moves through protection, that's true; however, I'm not an admin, so I don't have that user right, and I don't have a crystal ball. If I were an admin, I might very well have renamed the page, because in this instance it was the right thing to do, and it has been soundly supported by the community. The rest is just window dressing. Painiusput'r there 09:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I note that there is no link from the (talk) page under discussion to this page. I would most likely have looked briefly at the move discussion, found that it had been successfully concluded and the page given its now-correct title, and left it at that. But somehow I noticed a reference to Move Review, and found my way here. Of course the move was correct, as agreed by the majority of those commenting on the original move discussion on the talk page. "Meghan Markle" is now a historic name. This is a case of a woman now-married, who is clearly not going to continue to use her previous name, who is not continuing her previous occupation, and who has for the last week been described in the authoritative media as the Duchess of Sussex. It is of course true that the wedding event is correctly described as the marriage of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, just as we might once have talked about the wedding of David Beckham and Victoria Adams. But in discussing the woman herself and the role she has now taken on, there should be no conception that we continue to use an out of date name.
This is not a normal case of a move away from a "stable title". The real-world situation changed a week ago when the marriage (and the creation of the title) occurred. Many of the original comments were of the nature "she is commonly called Meghan Markle" being made so soon after Saturday 19th that no-one could seriously be anticipating how the change would change that "fact". If the title was to be changed to the out of date name now, it would simply have to be moved again based on the obvious fact that she is now known as the Duchess of Sussex.
As for how to deal with similar circumstances in future, I have seen very many cases where a person, or a company/institution/charity etc, has changed its legal name and the page gets changed within few minutes of that change coming into effect. Perhaps some sort of principle could be adopted that where a change in the name of something "in the real world" occurs, the article name will not be changed for at least 3 days while the impact of the change is considered. In some cases that should be very much longer while the community waits to see if the change is accepted in reliable sources. Sussexonian (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pragmatic endorse I will pragmatically endorse the close as is. However, I still utterly condemn Jimbo's out of policy move of the article. I would prefer the article be moved back to its original title and a proper move discussion occur, but I am pragmatic enough to know that nobody is going to dare cross Jimbo and move the article back. Safiel (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional point Wikipedia does not use voting, we use consensus. Just because there were more oppose than support in the original discussion means squat. Most of the oppose comments did not cite policy, while most of the support comments did. So in reality, support carried the day. Safiel (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Safiel is also involved in the original discussion. Since I have found that several editors have neglected to note this in their comments here, I'll add a comment on that in the message at the top of the section. Dekimasuよ! 08:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Involved user Mea culpa. Safiel (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's concerning to me that involved users are coming here, trying to claim there's "no consensus" thus the page should be moved back, when there's a clear consensus in support of the move. Involved users are inherently unable to judge consensus for exactly this reason. This is a shameless and blatant abuse of the process in an attempt to override a clear community consensus. The lack of competence and integrity surrounding the RM's closure and the corrupt attempts to overturn the move in spite of an unusually strong consensus are disgusting. If I knew how dirty this move review would be, I never would have started it. Shame on all of you. Swarm♠ 19:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shame on you for interpreting numerical superiority as consensus rather than addressing arguments. It shows a complete ignorance of the Wikipedia:Consensus policy, which says that "consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments ... as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy". While I agree that this discussion here should not be hijacked by people involved in the move discussion, it is concerning to me that an administrator gives the same weight to Wikipedia policies such as WP:Article titles and to arguments such as "The Duchess has risen above the ranks of the plethora of female actresses" or "the Queen's vote wins". I cannot help but hope that you are not normally involved in closing discussions. Your comment is very unsettling. Surtsicna (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And shame on you, Swarm - evidently you do not know how move review works (perhaps you would call your comments abusive or incompetent) -- Dr. Kay read the discussion, fine you don't agree with it because against policy you count votes, but it does not make him your punching bag, because he sees a consensus that Jimbo moved out of process, et al., and that there were much stronger arguments against your stated preferred outcome. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Swarm, WP:MR where the instructions for this process are laid out, says (in relevant part) Commenters should identify whether or not they were involved or uninvolved in the RM discussion under review. pretty clearly indicating that having involved editors commenting in MRs is expected. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Swarm: You need to calm down. I don't see anything "dirty" or "abusive of the process" in this move review, just a bunch of editors familiar with move requests (some with hundreds under their belt) who are evaluating the closer's reading of this particular discussion, and recommending further action in good faith. Please trust the process and let it run its course. Had you not opened this move review, somebody else would surely have taken this step anyway, so no regrets necessary, whatever the outcome. — JFGtalk 23:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I got a bit too worked up here and I'll bow out. Thanks, Swarm♠ 23:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right direction per, in part, to "If we can't have a bit of fun in Wikipedia without a lot of hand wringing, we're going in the wrong direction." - Jimbo Wales in his title move. We are hand wringing. A "bit of fun" every blue moon (or much less) should be fine, as long as it is not so blatant that it will severely wound the encyclopedia. This does not. It wasn't vandalism, or done with an intent to harm. I also read the rest of Wales' statement, and he makes his case well, as the consensus (involved: my RM comment would be one which the closer would have ascertained as frivolous and not counted, but I made it, as I do this comment, with the certain awareness that the title will, after all is said and done, end up reflecting the formal name of the new duchess, bless her heart) appeared at the time, and appears now, to support the "move". As I said in the RM, leave it as is, somebody give Wales' a two-hour ban so he can meditate on the fun he had (either that or take in a good film), which allows Wikipedia to move forward with a sense of justice done, a slap on the wrist, and the title still in the right place, where it is at present. If he does it again desop him so quick that Larry Sanger comes back just because he feels the brisk wind. (full disclosure, I've admitted to my one fun edit too, which luckily has been caught and removed, and a short ban would also be in order) Randy Kryn (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's gotta be worth a WHALE of a trout! Whales sing, don't they? How they sound, Randy 'n Jimmy? Painiusput'r there 23:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That time at band camp I got Jimbo Whaled. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jim told me about that. He also told me about how much he just loathes jokes about his name. So watch yer back. Painiusput'r there 09:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to your sound whaling as "that time", and this move review as band camp.[citation needed]Randy Kryn (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
reclose as no consensus which is the result if the invalid WP:OFFICIALNAME !votes are discounted, and move back to Meghan Merkle. Please get rid of the rubbish about Jimbo using "special rights " in the close; Jimbo just used page mover rights that every admin has. If folks want to have a new move discussion, they will do. Jytdog (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By "special rights", I mean "the technical ability held by a user by virtue of a flag giving access to specialized functions", i.e. "admin rights" or "the ability to move a page while it is under move-protection". I don't mean "prerogative to override normal processes". DrKay (talk) 07:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:DrKay the part should be gotten rid of, exactly, is owever, even though the logic of the arguments below favors the common name, Meghan Markle, we are faced with the fact that the page was moved by a user with special powers. Any attempt to undo the move by anyone other than the founder is likely to result in more disturbance and potential accusations of wheel-warring.. This is the part that should be gotten rid of. While I understand your fear (as a human), as a community we don't tremble before the Magical Power of Jimbo. :) Jytdog (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse DrKay's close and DrKay's well-reasoned comments in this discussion. Randy Kryn, with his usual gentle humor, also put the matter into perspective. Leave the title where it is. What has been done is done. Let us not have to go through another lengthy, contentious and exhausting discussion on the same topic. However, if there is to be another RM, perhaps it can be focused on setting the record straight on another frequently mentioned part of the equation, which is to clarify or determine support for Meghan, Duchess of Sussex → Duchess of Sussex, which already redirects to the current title. Roman Spinner(talk • contribs) 05:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that "commenters should identify whether or not they were involved or uninvolved in the RM discussion under review." There may be others here who haven't done this; I only single out this particular comment because as a regular at WP:RM I expected you'd know to do so. Dekimasuよ! 08:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reminder. I am involved, having voted "Oppose" in the RM discussion. Roman Spinner(talk • contribs) 09:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the finding that Jimbo made an out of process move; Endorse the findings that the "Meghan Markle" 'side' made the better policy compliant arguments (see my earlier comment, above) and as to other matters there was no consensus (the consistency argument as noted in the close was hotly contested, because of a plethora of different models already existing in our article titles (for royal wives)); Reclose to move back to Meghan Markle, as others have argued. As at least one of the "opposes" in the discussion below basically said, Jimbo's move intentionally or unintentionally created a naming fiat accompli, which potentially effects Wikipedia's integrity. This is due to citogenisis the ability of Wikipedia, regardless of what we mean by title to effect sources (after all, the title as we mean it, should not change even one fact of her life related in the article), but Wikipedia's integrity and tertiary purpose is built on following the body of RS, not leading. In a while's time then editors of the article can revisit title, editors can change minds, and in the meantime focus on making the article better. (For ease of reference, as noted in my comment above, I did not ivote but I did comment in the underlying discussion). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at Meghan, Duchess of Sussex' I am really not sure what the issue is here. Has she suddenly become a different person? As to Mr Wales (no relation!) turning to the dark side, I am not sure he is alone in making such judgments about consensus. Consensus is not a vote, and such value judgement as to who made the best arguments often close such debates. I wonder how many people had even heard of her before this, she was not (as far as I can recall, never having heard of her) even B list.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram: has now moved the article back to Meghan Markle Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I have moved the page back to the status-quo situation before this clusterfuck started, per "While the requested 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." (top of Wikipedia:Move review) and per the closure of the latest move discussion. Moving the page again following the conclusion of this move review or a full page move discussion is of course standard procedure and not wheel-warring, and I have no opinion on what the eventual page title should be. Fram (talk) 10:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close (uninvolved user). DrKay has weighed the arguments and correctly determined the strength being with those who object to the move done by Jimbo Wales without prior discussion and who supported a move back to the old title of Meghan Markle. As DrKay has outlined in their well-reasoned closing statement, the numerical majority made the weaker policy-based arguments, with many citing no reason at all or non-reasons like "official name", "legal name", "more appropriate", "cosistency", "respect" and of course "If Jimbo says so!". Those few in support of the new title who cited guidelines (WP:NCROY and WP:CONSISTENT mostly) failed to advance arguments why WP:AT, a policy, should be overwritten in this case, especially considering the precedent mentioned by multiple users supporting the old name that other members of Royal families (including this one, i.e. Sophie Winkleman) have articles named based on their "common" name. As such, I agree that the consensus was in favor of the article's title being Meghan Markle. Regards SoWhy 10:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse No Consensus, Move back to Meghan Markle - Do not allow the out of process move made through protection "for fun" to stand. Carrite (talk) 11:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re-close the existing close is unacceptable. Despite 2-1 numerical support for opposing the move, a "No consensus" close is reasonable, though I'd prefer to see a 3-admin panel find that conclusion. If there is no consensus, the page must be moved back to Meghan Markle, Jimbo notwithstanding. The primary argument appears to be WP:COMMONNAME, and a Google search for "Meghan" gives results primarily using "Meghan Markle", with only a few using the title Duchess. The arguments for consistency are cherry-picked; Grace Kelly and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge show that there cannot be perfect consistency. As a final note, Wikipedia generally lags behind in moves, and a move's eventual inevitability is not an argument to move the article now; Bangalore and Hirohito being examples of articles I am sure will be at different titles in 100 years. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse No Consensus, Move back to Meghan Markle — I was not involved in the original discussion. The closer gave a detailed and well-reasoned analysis in which his conclusion was that Meghan Markle, like the similarly previously famous Grace Kelly, is the correct common-name title. The closer's trepidation appeared to be based on a user with special tools (and by "founder," does this mean Jimbo Wales?) who made a unilateral, undiscussed move and whom the closer feared would behave badly if that move were reversed. Fear of someone behaving badly ("Any attempt to undo the move by anyone other than the founder is likely to result in more disturbance and potential accusations of wheel-warring.") is not something on which decisions should be based.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the bit about Jimbo, but endorse the move back to Meghan Markle. Determining consensus is not a vote count, and the numerical advantage of "oppose" over "support" should always be viewed through the lens of policy. In this case, the closer correctly rejected votes relying on an WP:OFFICIALNAME type argument, and noted the evidence provided in support votes saying that the WP:COMMONNAME had not apparently changed. As such, a "consensus to move" was legitimate despite the apparent minority vote tally for that option. Some admins might have called it "no consensus" instead, but the outcome is the same either way. Back to Meghan Markle we go. As for the Jimbo argument, I do not believe it to be wheel warring for an admin to reverse the founder's move where consensus/lack of consensus in a discussion has supported that. If Jimbo wants to invoke some special powers to enforce a move to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, then let him go ahead and do so, and we can deal with the fall out if that happens. But for now, we should just treat Jimbo like any other admin, and undo his actions if community consensus says to do so. — Amakuru (talk) 20:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure as consensus favoring Meghan Markle and overturn to the aforesaid (uninvolved user): Consensus is not counted in votes, it is based on policy. We collect votes because reasonable, experienced editors often disagree on how to interpret and apply policy, and votes help us determine which of those interpretations holds more water with the community. This requires, however, that policy-based reasons be advanced by those voting in that discussion. And that rather conspicuously did not happen. Having the read the entire thread, most arguments were based on an official/legal name type argument, which is not policy-based and so holds no weight: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. The only policy-based argument in favor of the move was consistency. The problem is that there was a consistency argument for both sides, which more or less renders the entire argument moot, as the whole naming schema is not consistent. That leaves us only with the common name argument against it. DrKay noted all of this in her closure and noted correctly. His/her only failure was in not implementing it. —Compassionate727(T·C) 23:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This needs to be closed and reopened (or not). The article is still gyrating and is now Meghan Markle. No result here will be legitimate considering the talk page discussion and all the disconnected and disjoint discussion. It's not even clear what this review is endorsing or opposing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:192C:D49F:EAB:7AEC (talk) 06:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was a RM discussion whether to move this article to Meghan Markle (reverting the move made by Jimbo). It was closed in support of such an action but the closer did not implement it. The editor starting this review contended that DrKay misread consensus, so we are reviewing their closing. Regards SoWhy 07:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the closer clearly stated that they saw consensus to move back to the original title. They then went on to say that actually they wouldn't close it that way because of Jimbo. Yet there is nothing in the remit of WP:RMCI which gave DrKay the authority not to implement a close they had already decided upon. The last part of the close was out of process, and has now been overruled by the article going back to Meghan Markle. It's true that this MRV is confused, because there are several different variables at play, and even "endorse" isn't clear because there are two parts of the close (the consensus-finding and the let's-not-do-this-because-of-Jimbo parts). I have seen very few votes here which endorse the second part of that. — Amakuru (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven, it isn't clear that "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" is right. She's not "a" Duchess of Sussex; she's "the" Duchess of Sussex, because she's currently married to the Duke. When Diana was married to Charles, she was "The Princess of Wales". When they divorced, the palace issued a press release that she would be styled from then on as "Diana, Princess of Wales" (i.e. "a" Princess of Wales; no longer "the"). I therefore wonder whether we have these styles correct on WP; again, "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge" is "The Duchess of Cambridge", not "a", etc. SarahSV(talk) 15:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I a not seeing "the" in those page titles (or in the honorific titles either come to that), so I would say that yes we have them correct according to their usage.Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven, what I mean is this. When Charles and Diana divorced, she became "Diana, Princess of Wales". This signalled that she was no longer THE Princess of Wales. If a Prince of Wales were to divorce and remarry several times, there might be a "Susan, Princess of Wales", a "Jane, Princess of Wales", and a "Helen, Princess of Wales". Each would be "The Princess of Wales" during the marriage. Therefore, by calling current wives "Name, Duchess of ...", I'm not sure we've got it right. SarahSV(talk) 16:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is how they would be styled, not with a the or an "a". It is what they are officially know as, and we do in fact have a precident for what happens when more then one person holds a title [George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham], note no the.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you and SV are talking past each other, there is no question the style and title for the living and present is "HRH The Duchess of . . ., and yes the former and the dead don't have an 'a' or a 'the', because the dead, et al. are not 'the' and they never could be an 'a', unless there are more than one former living at a time (which has not really happened). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven and Alanscottwalker, when we say "Diana, Princess of Wales", we imply the indefinite article while the person is alive. Question: which Princess of Wales? Answer: Diana. (Note that she was given this style because of her divorce, not her death.) Following this logic, I'm not convinced that "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" is correct. Is there an authoritative source for that being how she is styled? The big problem with our aristocracy and nobility articles is that we confuse titles with names. We don't title our BLPs "Dr. Susan Smith". We don't call Justin Welby's article "The Most Reverend and Right Honourable Justin Welby". Therefore, why Charles Gerard, 1st Earl of Macclesfield? Okay, maybe sometimes we need to do it for disambig purposes. But otherwise I think we should drop it. SarahSV(talk) 18:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
? The first part does not sound right, she did become HRH [a] 'Princess of Wales' because she was no longer (or, she was the former) HRH The Princess of Wales. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC) strike, per correction, below). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alan, not "HRH Diana, Princess of Wales". She lost the HRH and became the more ordinary (in her view) "Diana, Princess of Wales". That she was a former THE Princess of Wales was signalled by calling her "Diana, Princess of Wales". (And she was reportedly upset about it.) But Meghan Markle is THE Duchess of Sussex, not "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex". SarahSV(talk) 19:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I thought they let her keep HRH (the beasts!) but any rate, the rest of what you say now sounds right. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would guess that it all stems from WP:COMMONNAME, so reliable sources must be the telling factor. I've seen her compared with Grace Kelly, who was also an actress and married into royalty as the Princess of Monaco. Is Meghan Markle as famous now as was Grace Kelly when she became royalty? Probably no. So it's most likely true that Markle's royal title will soon rise to the top of our article about her. Did everyone's beloved Jimbo jump the fun-gun? Maybe. What I don't get is why this has drawn such avid attention with some downright non-AGF feelings expressed by some editors toward other editors. Quite the sad commentary. Lot's more important things to be improved here, Wikipedia has so much more to give if editors would only work harder to fulfill its needs and stop buying in to such drama-duchess duping. Too many trollers have weighed in here and in other discussions on this topic. I think we should collectively agree to give the duchess her rightful title! Right this moment! Painiusput'r there 10:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, why so glum? This may prove useful, we now all know the quick move back is the way to go - and let discussion continue on (may even lessen heat) and we can even have a standard edit summary for the move back ('Jimbo fun?', perhaps will get quick self reverts, 'Jimbo fun!') - at any rate, the only 'sad' thing is the beating actual fun on Wikipedia has taken -- every day thousands upon thousands of editors have fun - no moving through protection required (It's 'sad' that someone and then others suggest, that's the way to have a bit of fun? Do they really find the rest of what's done here such drudgery? :) ). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
cheese and crackers! You're correct! Again! Ta, off to have some more fun with Jimmy. Painiusput'r there 15:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse both the close and the subsequent move back (involved). We need to draw a line under everything that's gone on so far and start again. It's become confused and messy because the processes aren't being followed, which just goes to show why we have processes. Neither DrKay's close nor the subsequent move of the article back to 'Meghan Markle' prevents there being another requested move (Meghan Markle to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex), which is what should have happened in the first place. If we now go back a step and undo the close it's not going to help matters. It's just going to make things worse because whatever the outcome someone will object. Draw a line under everything so far and re-run the discussion properly. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with most of what you say, things have become too confused and heated. However, I would recommend not rerunning the discussion immediately, but waiting 3-6 months, as suggested by JFG above. This will give time for the media frenzy following the wedding to settle down, and hopefully for it to become clear what the long-term WP:COMMONNAME for her will be. With enough evidence, (either that everyone still calls her Meghan Markle, or that everyone calls her the Duchess of Sussex), a future move request would likely not even be very contentious. — Amakuru (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, like Dnipro in 2016, I was reminded of the Manning case from 2013 as well. Was ultra-sensitive when first moved, with lots of name-calling on both sides of the argument, then became totally uncontroversial a year later. A good reminder that as an encyclopedia, we shouldn't try to lead sources or respond to emotional arguments. WP:There is no deadline. — JFGtalk 13:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the close and the move back to Meghan Markle, which is really, really obviously the WP:COMMONNAME, the most WP:RECOGNIZABLE (I had no idea who "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" until reading this), the more WP:CONCISE, etc. Our title policies and consensus-assessment policy and procedures do not just evaporate because an admin/WMF officer decides to unilaterally WP:SUPERVOTE in a way that scares off most who would reverse it. A review of the discussion shows a) a clear consensus that Jimbo's action was out-of-process, b) solid policy-based arguments which carry weight, and c) a big steaming pile of WP:ILIKEIT with nothing to back it up (and most of it off-topic, about liking Jimbo and supporting him doing what he likes, not focused on the substance of the article title matter). This was perhaps a "brave" close, but it was not an incorrect one. We need more admins who follow policy and procedure like this, even if some people get pissy about or want to wiki-politicize the result. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse move to Meghan Markle. The closer correctly found that the policy-based consensus was in favor of "Markle", both for procedural (Jimbo's abuse of sysop powers, moving a move-protected page against then-established consensus rather than filing a move request) and substantive (COMMONNAME) reasons. That consensus should be followed, regardless of an individual user's opinions. A special title does not confer the privilege of violating consensus on any editor, even Jimbo. James (talk/contribs) 16:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure: I commented in favor of "Meghan Markle" at the RM. James (talk/contribs) 16:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Obviously many users still favor the article being titled Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. It seems that some users are using WP:COMMONNAME as the basis of their argument that this article must be moved back to Meghan Markle. I would like to remind everyone that the Duchess of Cambridge, the Duchess of Cornwall, and Diana, Princess of Wales, are all "commonly" known as Kate Middleton, Camilla Parker Bowles and Princess Diana respectively, thus I don't see a reason for making Markle an exception, especially since she'll be known by her "royal" title" for the rest of her life. Even if this discussion gets closed, the issue can be revisited again after several months. Keivan.fTalk 16:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Such arguments were presented during the move discussion by many users, but were rejected because they did not comply with move policy. In other words, the argument does not hold much weight. Surtsicna (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is also factually incorrect. See this article for instance: [6]. The opening paragraph mentions "Meghan Markle" and the "Duchess of Cambridge". Sure, that's the Daily Mail, so maybe not a full RS, but evidence enough that the two are not treated the same in all sources. — Amakuru (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts on this is that the move to “Duchess of Sussex” occurred prematurely. Per WP:Article titles, when a name changes, we should give more weight to sources written after the change... but I am not sure we have enough “sources written after the change” to make that determination yet. So... whether we overturn the move or keep it, I think the entire issue should be revisited in about a year. By then we should have a much clearer picture of what name “sources written after the change” are using. Blueboar (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse reverting to Meghan Markle - Requested Move discussions are not a vote, so the claimed 2/3 supermajority does not have relevance. Focusing on stronger arguments instead of vote counting is in no way unusual. --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Closed with reason "disambiguate" which is not one of the WP:THREEOUTCOMES. The closer also elaborated on this by providing page view evidence and additional rationale of the sort we'd expect from a participant expressing their viewpoint, not an impartial closer. There is at least enough support for the move of this article to primary for a relisting, especially since on the last day of the RM, one of the related articles was moved out of process and a late concern about mispelling was brought up. -- Netoholic@ 07:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as support There was a clear consensus to make the character the primary topic, with the rapper being dubiously notable. Anyone can see it by simply looking at the page, and the sole oppose didn't advocate for a disambiguation page either, but a primary redirect. The result appears to be a WP:SUPERVOTE that totally ignores the actual votes.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Disclosure: I was the one who raised the issue of misspelling. It was not my first impression, it arose out of my research, and I admit I found it surprising how common the misspelling was... but I'm a metallurgist's son and have been discussing alloys and eutectics since I learned to solder at age five. It would not have occurred to me that anyone would misspell alloy, but I found that they did. It's certainly a courageous close, but entirely consistent with our bottom line of reader experience, and arguably with policy even disregarding IAR. The concern about misspelling was not late, and the evidence offered that it's not a common misspelling appeared frankly disingenuous to me. Andrewa (talk) 10:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it was a semi-common mispelling (which Google does not agree with, but alas), then it could just use a disamb tag on top of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which would be the character. To create an entire disambiguation page for something so minor is a silly. ~ Dissident93(talk) 21:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to relist, secondarily the move as proposed; since the misspelling issue was raised late, a relist to see if people started opposing based on that would've been reasonable, however the current close appears a WP:SUPERVOTE; there isn't any policy or guideline basis that I know nor given by the closure for disregarding the supports nor do I believe it common that merely plausible, and not common, misspellings are disambiguated when there are other topics with the same name (or even for misspellings to be listed in disambiguation pages, except in see also, per MOS; and with only 5 times the page views and this misspelling presumably used somewhere <1% of the time, hardly seems a basis for a disambiguation there). On the reader benefit, readers interested in Horizon Zero Dawn as as much readers as those interested in alloys. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is awkward. There's been plenty of out-of-ideal-process stuff happening with this one. It's an awkward situation anytime a topic literally overnight replaces another topic as the topic "more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought" by readers. What happened to precipitate such a radical and abrupt change? Occasionally there may be a legitimate explanation, but generally it's just a matter of editors noticing a discrepancy in assessment of PT that previously nobody was paying much attention to. What you would more generally expect is a transition where the significance of one topic gradually fades while another's rises... and some transition period where neither is primary. Sometimes these transitions are relatively brief, but they're helpful to ensure that correct internal links are maintained. Here we've seen a partial implementation of the RM which wasn't accompanied by a formal close, or removing a tag that no longer applied, and not leaving a redirect where the redirect should have been left. Then a failure to complete the disambiguation required by that removal from PT status: (diff). THREEOUTCOMES applies to individual moves, and this was a multi-move request with a mixed result. One outcome was MOVED to Aloy (rapper), obviously. Now I see that the article on this Spanish rapper was deleted from the Spanish Wikipedia and is now up for deletion here as well. Dealing with this earlier would have simplified this RM. My close was effectively NO CONSENSUS for moving Aloy (Horizon Zero Dawn) based on three editors either expressing support for disambiguation or asserting primacy for another topic. I stated earlier that was borderline for a relist – it would have been an easier relist without the rapper's article muddying the request. There is no call for overturning or relisting that move, obviously. I've been a little hasty here based on some impatience after seeing this listed at RM as both elapsed and malformed and fixing the issues stemming from that. On further review, I see that the Horizon Zero Dawn character dominates my Google search, and Google doesn't even bother to put a "Did you mean: alloy" hatnote at the top of their results. I do not favor making misspellings primary topics over other, correctly spelled topics. So, if WP:IAR will allow me, I would like to close this now and move Aloy (Horizon Zero Dawn) to Alloy as requested. wbm1058 (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just an observation on the misspelling aspect of this – Wiktionary lists aloy as a word in two obscure languages, but not as a misspelling in English, as it does with, e.g. mispelling. Wiktionary lists over 2800 misspellings, but this isn't one of them. wbm1058 (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as support "Aloy" as a mispelling for alloy is not even a common misspelling and probably shouldn't even be used with a disamb tag on the article. One user brought up an improperly queried google search of the term to prove the point, but when done properly, it just clearly showed the character was the primary topic for "Aloy". I can't believe that prematurely ended the original RM, which should have been kept open as it was still active. ~ Dissident93(talk) 21:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. (uninvolved) Unsure about the suitability of this RM for Move review, since the closer clearly stated in a post-move comment that was made several hours before this MR began...
Feel free to open a new RM for Aloy → Aloy (disambiguation) and Aloy (Horizon Zero Dawn) → Aloy, as a defacto relisting of the above, if you want to.
Since the closed RM is all muddled, it would be better to follow the closer's advice to open a new RM. Kudes to the closer for a tough call. Paine Ellsworthput'r there 13:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and speedy close - given the point mentioned by Paine Ellsworth above, that the closer gave explicit permission after the RM was closed for a new RM to clarify the primary topic question, I don't understand why this move review was then initiated. The close of no consensus on the new primary topic question was a line call, but not unreasonable given the uncertainty and the fact that some voters may not have considered the possibility of alloy being in the mix. The suggestion of a fresh RM, equivalent to a relisting, but benefiting from a blank slate, is absolutely a good one, and this MRV should be speedily closed so that that can go ahead. — Amakuru (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and speedy close. The closer made perfectly reasonable calls here in an effort to clear up the confused proceedings of the discussion, and was open to starting a new RM without the taint of confusion. The energy spent here debating the close would be better spent in a fresh RM, though at this point it should wait on the outcome at the AfD for Aloy (rapper).--Cúchullaint/c 21:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just noticed that for the second time in less than a month, the nom did not discuss the RM on the closer's talk page first before opening an MR. (Notification is not discussion.) That's two trouts in less than a month! Be getting a lot of fish protein there, Mr. N. Next time, if there is a next time, you just might graduate to a mammal! So there are now two good reasons to procedurally close this MR: 1) the nom failed to discuss the RM on the closer's talk page before opening this MR, and 2) the closer expressed no prejudice toward opening a new requested move as an alternative to relisting. If someone else doesn't close this MR in a few hours, then I will. Painiusput'r there 16:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Involuntary celibacy – Closure endorsed, nothing provided in discussion below suggests there's a consensus that the original closure result exceeded the bounds of reasonable discretion on the part of the closer. The access rights owned by a closer's account are irrelevant to their ability to gauge and close a discussion. Fish+Karate 12:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Improper Non-Admin close(WP:NAC) Not only should the requested move not be closed by a non-admin, the move was relisted 5 days before the non-admin closed discussion and moved the page, here. There was definitely not clear consensus to move the page, and the move was controversial. Since the article was previously deleted numerous times before, the last time it was also salted. There is no way the move request should not have been closed by an admin.Dave Dial (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse
Regarding NAC - Having challenged such a non-admin closure of a contentious subject in the past, I learned that, as per WP:RMNAC, "the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is not sufficient reason to reverse a closure".
Regarding the relisting, WP:RM is clear that "When a relisted discussion reaches a resolution, it may be closed at any time according to the closing instructions;" (i.e. there's no obligation to wait another 7 days). In this case, the discussion which had been active at the time of relisting had died down. It was closed on May 8. There was 1 edit on May 8, 1 edit on May 7, and 0 edits to the discussion on May 6.
Regarding consensus - as soon as it became clear there was consensus that the article was about the subculture, which is called the "incel"/"incels" subculture, and not a broader subject of people who cannot find romantic/sexual partners, it was obvious [to me at least] that it should be named for that subculture. In other words, it's about a subculture known as "incels" (a portmanteau of "involuntary" and "celibate"); it is not about the broad concept "involuntary celibacy" that some people have formed an "incel" subculture around. If it were the latter, the former title made sense, but as the subculture it seems pretty clear that it should be named after the subculture and not the words the subculture combined to make its name (i.e. reliable source coverage predominantly covers them as insels, regardless of whether they also explain that the name comes from "involuntary celibacy"). The arguments in support seem much stronger along those lines, in addition to there being a decent number more of them. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 21:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am probably not going to express an opinion on what to do here (though I don't think this was a great close), but I strongly agree with the second point, and agree to a certain extent with the first one. Discussions should be closed whenever they have reached a resolution, since we're not a bureaucracy. As to the first point, in most cases it should not matter if the closer is an administrator or not. In this particular case I think it is less clear cut, since one of the issues under discussion was the history of salting related titles (i.e. use of tools) by a panel of administrators. Dekimasuよ! 18:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (no consensus). Another WP:NAC failing courageous WP:Supervote, the closer’s asserted “consensus” is not a reading of the discussion. The discussion is a horrible mess, with no one convincing anyone. More broadly across the talk page, there is a developing consensus that something needs doing, along the lines of a split of the pathology/psychology/anthropology from the topic of the multiple online “incel communities”. It is not appropriate for this RM to be locking in “incel” as one of the split articles with the other not done. For that split article, the adjective neologism is not a good title, it was clearly and strongly opposed as a suitable title. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: Just out of curiosity, since your oppose !vote was The current title is clear, recognisable, and scholarly. The proposed is abbreviated slang. The self-identifying “Incel” communities are not individually notable., doesn't that conflict with our article on the subject (using the text from before the move) "a subculture consisting of online communities whose members define themselves as being unable to find a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one"? There was some talk of including the broader concept "involuntary celibacy" with the article, but the article became, before/without the move, squarely about the subculture. This is in large part because the hybrid article is what was rejected repeatedly in past AfDs, and it was only when coverage of the subculture surged that the topic became notable. Given it's about an online subculture and not a scholarly term, wouldn't it be more accurate to use the name of that subculture as the title, rather than a term that could easily be misunderstood by readers expecting to read about the broader phenomenon? If someone wants to start a separate article about the pathology/psychology/anthropology, they can do that (although given past AfDs, it seems likely to result in a merge), but that doesn't need to affect the naming of this article, no? — Rhododendritestalk \\ 14:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. I have been watching, but not seriously enagaged. The lack of scholarly sources is poor justification for heavy use of mere mention sources. I remained quite unconvinced that any single incel community is notable. It’s all a big mess in my opinion, and I was quite shocked and unimpressed that someone could claim there was a consensus. The AfD history is clear evidence of a history of controversy about this article. I do think incel is both a slang abbreviation and an adjective and unsuitable as a title even just for those two reasons. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus which means restore to the stable title. The closer did not cite a valid policy based reason for a move, neither did most of the supporters, and those who did vaguely waved at COMMONNAME without providing additional justification in sourcing or policy beyond the ALLCAPS (COMMONNAME being just one of the competing naming criteria, precision being another). Depending on the closing statement, I may have been able to have been talked into a weak consensus to move, but unfortunately, I don't see one, and the closer's lack of policy justification for a move means that this needs to be overturned to no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TonyBallioni, it's interesting that you criticize the mention of "ALLCAPS", but you discount my closing rationale because I didn't write anything in ALLCAPS. I was not supposed to be !voting; if I were, I would have referenced both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION, which is in favor of the move ("involuntary celibacy" isn't nearly as specific as "incels". My friend who is waiting for marriage to have sex and is dating, wants to get married, but isn't married yet... well, she's involuntarily celibate, but she ain't an incel!). I just wrote something down below further explaining my decision; hopefully you find it a satisfactory explanation. Red Slash 10:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Red Slash,I was referencing the participants, but yes, your response to me here has no policy basis and is an example for why you made a huge error. If you felt this strongly about it, you simply should have commented and let someone else close. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that I (or the other experienced editors who supported the RM) am not familiar with WP:CRITERIA, even if we didn't link to it? Are you somehow reading the comments that I wrote and thinking "this has nothing to do with recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and/or consistency, etc."? If I/we had made exactly the same comments but threw in those buzzwords and a WP:CRITERIA link, would you be saying the same thing? If not, that's the definition of wikilawyering. If so, then perhaps you could elaborate on how, effectively, "nearly all of the sources call the subculture incels" is irrelevant to WP:CRITERIA. If you would prefer to see links, you can start with what's right there in the article itself. Go through the links that are actually about the topic (as opposed to being used for an offhand connection to another topic) and tell me that an article about the subculture should go by "involuntary celibacy". When the thread started, there was some amount of push to synthesize the incel subculture and the commonsense meaning of "involuntary celibacy" and some other coatracky stuff into a single article. That's not the case anymore -- and that was resolved before/without the closure of this RM. I supported the original title in the former case, but when it's about the subculture, it should be completely uncontroversial given the sourcing. In addition to having gone through many sources on this subject over the past few weeks, I just did a spot check, looking at all of the first 14 sources we cite and all primarily describe the subculture as "incel(s)". In some cases they say that that term comes from combining "involuntary" and "celibate/celibacy", but clearly incel is the primary name for this subculture and the sources reflect that. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 13:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to be reviewed by admin - there is no way this was clear-cut. A non-admin should not have closed it. Period. Issues such as naming (after a concept no the people who hold the concept) were ignored. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as closer. I've seen ice cut with a cleaver that was less clear-cut than this. I wouldn't have closed it otherwise. There were two arguments against the move: one dealt with the scope of the article (e.g., "proposed alternate title does not adequately meet WP:UCRN or WP:PRECISION. I see no evidence that there is consensus that the scope of this article is limited to the 4chan aspect of the subject"), and the second, much less commonly mentioned opposition, dealt with opposition to the name itself (e.g., "This is the name of the situation; "incel" is a contraction of the idea", or "wikipedia article titles I thought were encyclopediac not media acronyms"). A third line of reasoning had absolutely nothing to do with our naming guidelines and policies, or with fostering a consensus, or with writing an encyclopedia; these and only these were summarily discarded (e.g., "I don’t feel like I need to explain myself"). The two actual arguments presented in the move request against the move are two very distinct ones, and they needed to be addressed individually by supporters. They were.
A brief glance at the article shows that, despite the fervent arguments of a handful of editors to the contrary, the article already was almost entirely devoted to "incels", not any real scholarly discussion of people who are celibate and would not really like to be. I defy anyone to read the article as I found it and then tell me that the article is about neutral involuntary celibacy instead of the incel ideology. (There's no discussion of heterosexual prisoners, "old maids", victims of castration, spouses of people with physical disabilities preventing sexual activity, homosexuals in traditionalist cultures that discourage homosexuality, etc. The entire article, once you get past the etymology, is focused on the subculture of men who have no non-societal reason to not be having sex, yet are not having sex.) Read the lede paragraph of the article! If you wanted an article on people in general who are celibate even though they don't want to be, sorry, that ship had sailed. (Brief note: this is not a supervote. I'm simply summarizing !votes from User:The Anone, User:Sandstein, User:Rhododendrites, User:ChiveFungi, User:Aquinassixthway, and more. Those !votes are right there in the discussion for you to read.) The two ideas are clearly distinct according to the consensus on this move request.
On the other hand, some people argued that "incel" wasn't the right term. In other words, the scope of the article was good, but the actual term used was wrong. This was more compelling, and boiled down to WP:COMMONNAME versus... umm... blind assertions? A !vote like "we almost always keep a title at the phenomenon, not people with the phenomenon", while true, was not backed up with any source to prove that "incel" is not also a name for the ideology. "If it is used in sources(and the full name definitely is), that the full name should be used. There are more than enough reliable sources for the full name. And we aren't Reddit or 4chan, or even Wiktionary." - doesn't prove or even attempt to prove that the name "incel" is indistinct from "involuntary celibacy". "wikipedia article titles I thought were encyclopediac not media acronyms" - well, there's no appeal to policy there, either. (Which is because policy doesn't prohibit "media 'acronyms'", which is good, because after this hullaballoo, I sure don't want to have to fire up a move request for smog.)
All told, I didn't see any real reason not to follow the strong arguments in favor of a move. Not all the support !votes were obviously backed in policy, of course ("I support this article to be renamed to 'Incel'. We can add a hatnote to the Incel disambiguation page"), but enough of them were. It made the final result a foregone conclusion regardless of who would end up closing it. I figure that the oppose !voters would be filing an MRV regardless of who closed it, but I am indeed interested to hear from anyone who wasn't involved in the move. Red Slash 10:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
COMMONNAME was an assertion made without any proof and was in fact a blind assertion in this case. An experienced RM closer would have discounted those arguments. Both sides did an incredibly bad job of arguing their case, but the obligation is on those wanting to move to achieve consensus and present a policy-based reason for a move. That simply didn’t happen, and no move should have occurred. Also, FWIW, closets don’t typically “emdorse” their own close here, though they may make a statement. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, evidence for COMMONNAME was provided in the discussion: "(see, showing international heads above for 'incel', also as of this writing 'incel' is used like twice as much in our article - in particular, 'incel' is used throughout the sources section of our article)" and "we choose based on what's most common and ordinary and the topic, all of which points to incel, which the very reliable sources section of this article demonstrates (20 references to incel, 3 references to 'involuntary [something]'" Or perhaps you should say what you mean by evidence? Because what would you count as evidence? And is that a personal standard to you? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actual sourcing that demonstrates this. Some supporters did present this, but overall, most provided pretty weak grounds to support, and the opposers also brought sourcing. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those are actual sources, so what do you mean 'actual sources'? Also. the supporters did not bring sources. the best they could do is assert, merely assert, that 'incel' and 'involuntary celibacy' are equally common. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When talking about which name to call something, when would the standard not be to start with the sources cited in the article already? Nobody should even be commenting about the common name without looking at those. It's when it comes down to competing subsets of citations and/or sources not in the article that it gets messier. Had I known that someone would assume bad faith that I was making things up, and would not themselves look through the sources already cited, I might've grudgingly copy/pasted just about anything from the article onto the talk page, but that shouldn't be a requirement. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 13:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This explanation is as clear cut of a Supervote as I could have given. Reading the closer statements it is obvious they are making new arguments that weren't debated in the move request, and they are discounting the WP:COMMONNAME rational from the Oppose voters. Yes, that argument was made by both sides, since EVERY time a source mentions "Incel" it mentions "Involuntary celibacy". This should be overturned and Red Slash should be reprimanded. Dave Dial (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The explanation may need helping though I'd say that most of the opposes seemed IDONTLIKEIT based on the supposed "unencylopaedicness" of the term incel ("playing with current media interest - wikipedia article titles I thought were encyclopediac not media acronyms", "The proposed is abbreviated slang", even you're rationale of "And we aren't Reddit or 4chan, or even Wiktionary"). Sources use the term most, most introducing it like we do (though of course this isn't the place to relitigate such arguing) Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) No, the 'just as common' assertion argument was entirely refuted 'incel' occurs much, much more often both as shown by google trends, and in examining the sources, sources overwhelmingly use "incel" in title, and first mention, and while they may mention Involuntary[something], they use incel many, many multiples of times more. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to argue the move request here again, but those claims were refuted. I also copy and pasted my Oppose from a different request started and closed the same day, which was archived and Red Slash didn't even mention. I am disappointed that anyone would think that there was consensus there to move the page, much less "clear consensus". Pointing to headlines without reading the actual sources seems like a poor argument for moving an article. Dave Dial (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, they were not refuted because, you had no evidence, and "as shown by google trends, and in examining the sources, sources overwhelmingly use "incel" in title, and first mention, and while they may mention Involuntary[something], they use incel many, many multiples of times more." is clearly not just referring to title, although title is particularly relevant since we are talking title. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Strongly. (non-participant) Seems the main thrust of this MR is a two-fold argument: 1) the closer was not an admin, and 2) the nom thinks the close came too early after the debate was relisted. The first point is irrelevant to Move review because the non-admin vs. admin argument cannot be used here, and the second argument is irrelevant because a requested move can be closed at any time after being relisted as long as resolution has been reached. As a page mover, it was clear to me that a general agreement (a Wikipedia "consensus") had formed to rename the article. The nom clearly did not give this enough thought before bringing this to Move review, and overturners are asked to please reassess to consider endorsement on these grounds. Gentle reminder that MR is only used to evaluate the close, and this close was righteous!Paine Ellsworthput'r there 11:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as you asked, Paine: The closer was not an admin is relevant, or irrelevant, depending on how you look at it. On one hand, I can say that non-admins should not close controversial unclear discussions. On the other, I can say that no admin would ever have written that closing statement. The signs are in effort required to explain the close; if the closer has to do more explaining than any single participant did, then the closer has supervoted, the closer has played a more important role than any participant. That should never be the case. Another closer making the close without seeing that one could very well have made a different close, and would definitely have made a different explanation. I also want to repeat that WP:RMNAC is lacking. There is, oddly, more controversy with RMs than with AfD, and it is absurd to think that nonadmins should have more latitude to close controversial RMs than AfDs. WP:RMCI is a very poor location to refer to community consensus, as it is an admin instruction page that receives very little broad community attention. WP:RMNAC really needs abbreviating with reference to the much better WP:NAC. Note that the thrust of my "overturn" is WP:Supervote, to which it is irrelevant that the substance of the close can be argued on the merits of the facts. Arguing on the facts is a !vote. To the closer, my advice here, where the community is reviewing your admin action, is to conduct yourself with decorum. If you were at RfA, does your conduct here represent an example of how you would conduct yourself as a real admin? An another idle though, I wander whether the inconsistent advice at RMNAC vs NAC has created an NAC bias for NAC-ers to find a consensus because they can close a consensus but should not close a no-consensus, because no-consensus implicitly means a lack of clarity? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My MRV !votes are based on the need for closes to be conservative, which is the basis for closes to be respected, which is the basis for the RM process to be respected. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not surprised since I am aware of your consideration that nacs are unqualified to close controversial RMs, which I do consistently, as you also know. The community has already come to consensus on that, though, and as I said, the nac vs. admin arg has no place here. I will agree that the close rationale could have been less like a !supervote and more concise and objective; however, the outcome would have been the same if I had closed it. The page would have been moved as proposed. Paine Ellsworthput'r there 11:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Paine Ellsworth, no, I am sure I do not know you to be a consistent closer of controversial discussions. Is that really what you meant to write? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't have written it if I hadn't meant it, SmokeyJoe. The debates I close have almost always been relisted and are from the bottom of the table. And those are frequently controversial. Those take longer to research; however, they provide me with that old "find a need and fill it". Paine Ellsworthput'r there 13:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you are doing excellently well, I don’t recall seeing any complaints. Do you ever !vote instead of closing when the close is just a bit too unclear? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on several factors, such as my interest in the subject, or my interest in how WP policies/guidelines are/are not being followed and so on. I think "unclear" is a very subjective call. This MR is all about an RM that seems "unclear" to some people; however, to the closer and to myself, the decision to rename the article came from a crystal clear understanding of the debate. It was a good call. Paine Ellsworthput'r there 14:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding On the other, I can say that no admin would ever have written that closing statement., I suppose Ivory Coast may be the equivalent of an RM godwin's law, but I'd say here Beeblebrox exerted quite a bit of effort in a supervotey looking close a la this one. I don't think it there is an as vast gap in non-admin and admin closes as you think Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am holding to that statement. Ivory Coast was quite a storm, to much for me to have even come close to engaging in. User:Beeblebrox is noted as erring on the side of being interesting yes, and can be supervotery, but let’s see if even he will attest that he would have closed this incel RM the same way, substance and rationale. Vast gap? I didn’t say vast gap. There is a line, thicker than a fine line, but not quite a bright line. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This board has just three contested closes last month, and one this month, so what's your evidence for all this controversy? Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The controversy is evident in the pre-MRV days. These reviews brought about a massive decline in post-RM close controversy. There was some surge in MRV excitement with the creation of pagemover rights leading to courageous pagemover closings. There is not a lot of controversy, did I say there was? A lack of controversy is a poor reason to loosen the standard on closings. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I thought you were saying there was too much controversy and somehow that had to do with NAC, but since NAC do fine and are empowered by policy to do so, that seems great, right? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NAC, the essay now supplement, is important for keeping controversy under control. I think NAC, unlike RMNAC, is in good shape, has the balance pretty right. I think the NAC lines need to be supported, otherwise RMs can be decided by the fasted NAC-er to jump in. This was not an uncontroversial close. I’m not sure I get your question. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My questions are that non-admin closes of moves is supported by policy and that's a good thing, right? Whereas your essay is not policy, and that's a good thing right? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You’re asking policy taggery and wonkery? Which has higher standing, the supplement to deletion policy, or the RM closing instructions? The lines of possible debate! It’s very much non-ideal, I want to fix it, but now is not a good moment. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking why you would want to change non-admin-closes of moves when it's consensus to have them (they don't actually create much controversy) and it's a fine and rational system since admins are just as perfect as non admins (no more perfect than editors, certainly)? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What are you suggesting I am wanting to change? Very few NACs are BADNACs, but some are from time to time. I would like RMNAC harmonised with NAC. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apparantly you want to restrict non-admins from closing moves, that is a change because it is against current consensus, and it's frankly a bad idea. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Non admins have a tendency to supervote close calls, the advice of WP:NAC applies to both XfD and RM discussions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What? That seems entirely untrue, when you compare to admins, and at any-rate, it does not logically follow, nor is it supported by evidence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that supervote allegations are more often made against NACs. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse.The article is now specifically about incel online community, not about involuntary celibacy, which should have its own article. In the current state the article can't be named "involuntary celibacy" as it isn't about this subject. As per Understanding sexuality by Adelaide Haas, Kurt Haas the involuntary celibate are "those who have celibacy imposed on them by illness, age, or social circumstances(...). The involuntarily celibate include people who are physically or psychologically handicapped, or socially rejected. Women and men who are imprisoned may also be prohibited sexual relations for many years." I suggest creating an article on this subject, while the current one is about incel community--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist [or] no consensus, unfortunately. Admin or not, no close this controversial should have been undertaken with several days left in the relisting period and while discussion was continuing. It's disappointing that Red Slash, a very capable and experienced RM closer and participant, would not re-open the discussion when asked by several participants. More importantly, there's just no way there was a consensus to move to "Incel" in the discussion as it currently stood. Red is quite right that there was a lot of confusion and weak policy arguments in the discussion, but that was true on both sides - while some opposers felt the article should be about "involuntary celibacy" as a condition, the same was true with several supporters - there's no call to discount the former without also discounting the latter. And finally, while some of the editors preferring Involuntary celibacy be kept used weak arguments, few if any supporting "Incel" provided evidence that it's the more WP:COMMONNAME for the subculture, or otherwise preferable according to policy. In fact, just looking through the sources used in the article, the opposite appears to be the case. This is a major failing in Red's decision making, and unfortunately means the close must be overturned and the article returned to the status quo. Doing otherwise will just stir up even more confusion in the inevitable future discussions.--Cúchullaint/c 14:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Plainly false. The sources section of the article currently uses 'incel' 28 times and 'involuntary[something]' twice. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
few if any supporting "Incel" provided evidence that it's the more WP:COMMONNAME for the subculture - It's strange to see so many people saying nobody provided evidence as though we should presume that people will be opining without bothering to look at the sources already cited for themselves. The burden should be on those who want to argue against what is clearly the common name among the sources we already cite. As soon as it's moved back, we will have an article about a subject about which just about all of the sources use a different name. Should I have copy/pasted the whole list of sources? I won't quite do that, but below I've started just running through the sources we cite, starting at 1 and going down until I run out of steam. None are omitted.
Atlantic - ISIS Tactics Have Spread to Other Violent Actors ("...to “incels,” short for “involuntarily celibate.” Incels, mostly male..." -- as others do, it gives a "short for" or a "combination of", or a "comes from", and then proceeds to use "incel" as the primary identifier)
Can anybody reading these really say that an argument that "incel is the name most commonly used in the sources for this subculture" is not supported by evidence, etc.? — Rhododendritestalk \\ 14:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not that many who say that (although yes, one is too many), because it's just not true, it's a flat-out falsehood, and should be stricken by the MR closer.Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So we should only title our articles by headlines and not what the sources say in the body? List one of the sources that do not also mention "Involuntary celibacy" in the body of the article. I can give several that mention "Involuntary celibacy", but not "Incel", but I could not find any that did not also mention "Involuntary celibacy" from your list. Dave Dial (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not-the-point. Reliable Sources overwhelmingly, use it in title case, they use it in first mention, and they use it multiple times more in body - thus it is much, much more common, which is confirmed by Google Trend. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was getting at, Dave Dial. Looking at the sources given, they tend to give "incel", often in quotation marks, as an alternate term for "involuntary celibacy". No clear evidence was presented that "incel" is the common name, let alone so much more common that it overrides reasonable objections. And it's certainly true that no one parsed the evidence in the actual discussion (which is presumably why they're trying to do it now that it's been pointed out.)--Cúchullaint/c 17:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have again misrepresented the sources and shown your ivote here is not based on procedure -- the reliable sources in the article use "incel" much, much more often, 100% upon 100%'s times more if you read them than "involuntary [anything]" (and using them in quotation marks just means they're taking about the word) You are the only one who is trying to make a new analysis of sources, here, and misrepresenting them to boot, so your ivote here has to be stricken, as out-of-process. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. You are parsing, which would be fine in the RM discussion, but is just re-litigation here. At any rate it's only one of the various issues with this close.--Cúchullaint/c 19:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only nonsense is yours. Your Ivote must be stricken because it is you that is trying to argue the underlying move, indeed you gave us your own personal analysis of the sources, here, not procedure at all. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, several on this page are relitigating the Move Request, with arguments not presented in the actual MR. Dave Dial (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Untrue, rather, it's important to point out falsehoods and flat-out-unsupported mistakes and statements. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There’s an awful lot of scare quoting in your listed sources. Also, they mostly contain negligible commentary on “incel”s per se. Their use violates WP:UNDUE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even, were that true, which it is not, that makes no sense, we are talking about which word is used more commonly and those sources show 'incel' is used much more commonly Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not true that there are a lot of scare quotes? Or that the listed sources make brief mention of communities before devoting coverage to an incident? Used more commonly in quality sources is what counts. You listed a lot of sources that shouldn’t be used. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not true that those are scare quotes - and reliable sources commonly use 'incel' over and over again (and no, I did not just use scare quotes). The rest of your comment is nonsense on stilts, the article uses multiple quality reliable sources, so quality reliable sources commonly use 'incel', and they use 'involuntary celibacy' very rarely in comparison to 'incel' (and no I did not just use scare quotes). We are not naming another article, we are naming an article that uses these RS. Even more telling, is you cited absolutely no sources for anything you argued, just told us what you like and don't like, so you made no cognizable argument in the underlying matter, nor here in this appeal. - Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, they are scare quotes. I am not bringing in new sources because I am not trying to push anything, except that the discussion had not achieved consensus. I have been relying on the sources in the article, and note that the following: It is WP:Reference bombed and I have not read every source; many sources contain no more than mere mention of "incel communities" however described; too many of the sources are news stories saying much the same thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You did not bring any sources in the underlying discussion. You did not discuss sources at all, you merely told us what you like and don't like. Now, you tell us you have not even read the sources in the article, which just reaffirms your position is based not on sources but what you like and don't like. You're new reference bombing complaint is just you complaining that the reliable sources use the word incel too much, for your taste. In other words, its somehow too much, the common name.Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I read enough of the referenced sources. All of them from the lede, and all from the communities section, and I read all of the titles. The scare quotes are pretty prominent. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They're all from the lead/early part of the article because I started at 1 and started linking. These are the sources every person who commented in that RM should have looked at, and are all right there. Nobody should have to link them all. Quotation marks are used when introducing a neologism. It doesn't mean they're not actually called that. It wouldn't matter if it were a portmanteau or some other term readers have never heard of. The statement "they call themselves 'X'" which then goes on to use 'X' (with or without quotes) to refer to that subject seems to me that that's the common name of the subject if we have an article about X... — Rhododendritestalk \\ 13:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Despite you calling that Raccoon a Coon, because article headlines overwhelming refer to it as a "'Coon", it's not "falsehoods and flat-out-unsupported mistakes and statements" pointing out that the body of articles all refer to the Racoon as a Racoon in the articles. This is definitely being litigated with people trying to provide "new evidence". Or evidence that was countered in the MR. Discounting countered evidence is supervoting. There is just no way there was a consensus to move. Dave Dial (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then why repeat falsehoods and flat-out mistakes, we are not discussing coons - we are discussing a word for something that is used many, many times more commonly than the other. That's just the the way the real world works, we are not here to enshrine what you don't like about the real world. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)x2 @Dave Are you kidding me with this? So we should only title our articles by headlines and not what the sources say in the body - Headlines can be useful to summarize an article, but yes, all of those sources (with the possible exception of Elle) use "incel" as the primary identifier in the source, not just in the headline.
List one of the sources that do not also mention - Yes, sometimes another name is mentioned. They say where the name came from. The name. Where the name of the subculture came from. The subculture is "incel" (short for/comes from/a combination of... involuntary and celibate). We don't use more words just to use more words, we don't use the etymology of a concept as the name for the concept when the name of the concept is far more prominent and frequently used, we don't different name for a community just because the actual name of that community is a portmanteau, and we don't ask "yes, but do the sources also include the name Dave prefers, even if it's mentioned just as background?" The question is, for the subculture, based on these sources, what is the common name for that subculture? What is the most recognizable name for the subculture? Which is the most precise name for the subculture?
Also, several on this page are relitigating the Move Request, with arguments not presented in the actual MR - Obviously not true. Some people decided that arguments that presume we're talking about the sources in the article are articles that have no basis in sources. The above list is for convenience, since it seems people are not interested to look at the sources we were talking about. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 15:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I'm going to bow out of this now. Appalling behavior/arguments from experienced users I usually find thoughtful have me a little frustrated, and I need to be writing other things today. Aside from the contentious history of this article and the active disputes on the page, I don't know why the move itself is controversial. If you put procedural hangups aside and just look at the sources, it is simply not controversial that "incels" is the common and recognizable name for this subculture. Unless participants in this discussion are looking to use this RM to change the scope of the page to include other meanings of "involuntary celibacy" beyond the subculture, just leave the close alone and trout the closer for a NAC on a contentious subject (even if the RM itself wasn't -- or shouldn't have been -- contentious). I think I've said my piece. Ping me if there's something that needs a response. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 15:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - When reliable sources use the term "incel" it is almost always quickly identified as meaning "involuntary celibacy." As this article has been framed to be about that concept and not just the culture around it, we should use the full name.
So when I, or others, make the same points, we are "Appalling" or "promoting falsehoods"? I understand disagreements, but not the accusations. Dave Dial (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only going to clarify this one thing: as I've already said multiple times, I supported the original name when it was unclear whether it would be just about the subculture or a broader topic. In the latter case, because part of the subject is clearly not known as "incel," and because the former is intelligible with the longer name, it made sense. When it became just about the subculture, we should name it after the subculture. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 13:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move review is specifically for handling "procedural hangups" in a closing. It's certainly not for re-arguing the move discussion, or for introducing new arguments. It would be better to just re-open to move discussion and then folks can introduce all the new arguments and evidence they want.-Cúchullaint/c 17:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then why did you make blatantly false arguments above about sources, here? It appears you are now arguing your, ivote, here should be stricken. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What? I said that few if any supporters of "Incel" in the discussion provided evidence that that form is more common or otherwise preferable by policy, and it's also not evident from the sources in the article. Hence, the closer's decision was faulty.--Cúchullaint/c 17:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is a blatantly false statement, 'incel' is used multiple times more commonly in the sources in the article, and you still have not explained why you are giving your personal analysis of sources - so your ivote, here, must be stricken because you are not sticking with procedure at all, you are trying to blatantly wedge your editorial opinion in. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Drop the hyperbole. It's not a "personal analysis" of sources - it's simply not obvious in the sources that "incel" is more common, without considerable parsing, as you are doing. Nor did most of the supporters provide evidence to that effect in the discussion. Hence, it's a faulty close. Again, you could add the interpretation and evidence you want if the RM is re-opened, and then the next close won't be under such a cloud.--Cúchullaint/c 19:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not hyperbole, it is just your misrepresentation and your personal analysis (you bizarrely and falsely claim just what you want to deem as 'not obvious' is not personal to you - when it totally is personal to you) and it is blatant misrepresentation of the reliable sources, which say over and over again 'incel' much, much more commonly - you are just here, ivoting as if this were the underlying move, and trying to make arguments as if this were the move. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make those arguments, you're free to in a reopened RM. And you're more likely to persuade people if you stop being so nasty.--Cúchullaint/c 19:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone is being nasty, it is you. Your ivote here needs to be stricken because you have clearly made non-procedural arguments, and misrepresented sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still like to hear RedSlash's explanation for why they closed the discussion several days early, when comments were continuing to come in. That alone should have been a reason for them to reverse their close and let it run its course when asked by multiple reasonable editors.--Cúchullaint/c 19:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
several days early - the requirement is that it last for 7 days. After relisting, if discussion winds down, it's not "early" in the sense of being premature to close it. when comments were continuing to come in - When it was relisted, discussion was active. Here's what it looked like at time of close:
I've closed hundreds of RMs, many of them controversial, and sometimes before the relisting period is complete. However, if another editor, let alone several, reasonably asked me to reopen the discussion until the full period, I would never ignore them, if only so that it doesn't make the decision look incompletely formed, and to avoid forcing everyone to sink their time into a lengthy move review. If there's really a clear consensus, it'll still be there in a few days, and if new comments change the outcome, it's obviously for the best. The only reasons I can think of not to respond to this perfectly reasonable request are bad ones - the closer can't brook challenge and is digging their heels in to protect their decision, they're invested in the outcome and WP:SUPERVOTING, they don't value others' time, they just choked, etc. Perhaps Red Slash has another reason; they should give it here.--Cúchullaint/c 14:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the underlying discussion, at the time of relisting you argued that it should be closed as no consensus, and you further argued content claims based on a draft of prior deleted/salted article. Others disagreed with you and your claims, so perhaps you should turn your accusatory questions on yourself. Are you digging in your heals to protect your invested outcome? When RedSlash closed, commenting was not continuing and you have made other argumentative misstatements, which have been laid bare, above - thus, it appears you accuse yourself. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bro? Adolescent talk, does not make your arguments any less invested. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Red Slash. This discussion was extremely borderline, and needs a much stronger closer than a NAC. There are good reasons to move from "involuntary celibacy" to "incel"—there were also good reasons for keeping the article at "involuntary celibacy". I don't much care if the article lives at "Involuntary celibacy" or "Incel" so long as it doesn't try to treat the condition as legitimate, but I do think this move request needs to be reviewed by someone more experienced with evaluating consensus. GorillaWarfare(talk) 05:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per arguments I made at the talk page and per Red Slash above. I took the article off my watchlist after that "lead sentence" discussion, and I am not interested in discussing this topic any further or editing that article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And for the same reason the article shouldn't be titled "Involuntary celibacy" if it's only going to cover the subculture it currently mainly covers, "Involuntary celibacy" shouldn't redirect there either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse In raw numbers alone there was super-majority for incel, together with a small minority supporting either name as policy compliant, and even some !votes that opposed the incel title but just because both words, incel and involuntary celibacy would have to be in the article. But more so, the !votes show rough consensus based on policy and sources, that incel is the more appropriate title, as common name. As for reliable sources, the 'incel' argument was the only 'side' that brought reliable sources, the 'involuntary celibacy' 'side', brought no sources, they merely relied on their own assertions. Yes, Cas Liber (and perhaps one other) above and in the discussion below, was a rather lonely voice in saying that 'incel' is somehow 'personal', but Cas Liber only relied on Cas Liber, which although we respect Cas Liber, is just not enough. The 'incel' 'side' (in my comment in the discussion below) also made reference to the formal RS encyclopedia, which explicitly says "involuntary celibacy, often abbreviated incel" is "a social opposite"[7] - so whatever incel is, it is not just personal as Cas Liber seems to argue, nor is it as some few wanted to argue based on their own likes and dislikes, too much the unofficial name (and title policy says explicitly we don't follow official name), nor is it just informal slang, nor 'just adjective'; incel is -- as it plainly suggests on its face -- a common other-name for involuntary celibacy, and incel is both used in formal writing and, as relevant here, it is much, much more common, as shown by the discussion below. The issue here is not whether we agree with every word of the close - the close is, nonetheless, within policy and the consensus of the discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, largely per Rhododendrites. I'm against denigration of NACs in principle, and I deem the user/administrator division in such matters artificial and contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Every close should be evaluated on the merits. While this close does leave some unexplained points, not every admin close goes into much detail either. While the close might have gone to "no consensus" as well, I find it within the discretionary area. The argument that "incel" better fits the WP:COMMONNAME criterion has been brought forward by several posters, specifically by Alanscottwalker and Amin with evidence, and by Jayron32, feminist, Galobtter, Kaldari, Aquillion by assertion, so the reiteration by closer was not strictly necessary (albeit would be welcome). No such user (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I supported the move. I don't really have an opinion about whether the consensus was correctly established at the time, but the result certainly reflects the scope of the article as it currently exists in a stable state. Editorial consensus therefore tacitly supports the move. Undoing it would result in an article title that does not match the content. Sandstein 07:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
