Wikipedia talk:Move review/Log/2022 May

Berbers

I'm surprised at every administrative step taken here. An editor starts an RM with the phrase Can we have an article title that's not racist yet? (apparently, this sentence is the entirety of what's been referred to "caustic", "confrontational", "rude" and "hopelessly uncivil"). Sure, not a great start, but it's then followed by a solid guidelines-based rationale and a long list of sources. Surely, we should be able to look past the tone in the opener and focus on the actual question at hand? Yes, most participants do just that (except two, but opposition based solely on dislike for the nominator's tone should simply be discarded by the eventual closer); and there are some well-argued opinions offered both for and against the move. Looks like your usual RM so far. But no. The very next day after the RM was started, an editor comes along who apparently dislikes the tone so much they decide to close the discussion right away. Seriously? Yes, suggesting that the nominator start again with a reworded statement was good advice, but it doesn't work as a close, and definitely not after there has been substantial discussion and some support. That's the sort of close I'd revert on sight if it hadn't come from an experienced editor. And now that the inevitable MRV was opened, it only stayed on for a few hours before getting procedurally closed, again for the same reason as the RM close itself. Yes, إيان didn't do themselves any favours with their choice of tone, but the rest: that's really not how discussion are meant to get closed. – Uanfala (talk) 00:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

You missed some of the ugly tone. But the real objection is that, apparently on the basis of a new editor making some rather solipsistic remarks, the requester decided to reopen a question that was debated in 2020, in which they took part, but without doing much to address the concerns raised by opposers back then, especially the matter of "Berber" being much the more common term. And the "long list of sources" included at least two that didn't really indicate widespread use of "Amazigh" in lieu of "Berber", although that was the purpose for including them. An ordinary discussion, to get the sense of editors, would have been a better course. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Every administrative step here seems to have been taken to avoid feeding the troll, which is precisely what that RM nomination statement was: a troll. I would not be surprised if the nom is actually working for the opposition and trying hard to avoid a name change by doing everything wrong and pushing people's buttons. You or anyone else is welcome to do it right if a name change is what you would like to see; however, such trolling is irresponsible and unconcionable on Wikipedia. It should never be tolerated and nipped in the bud whenever possible. And I think this discussion should be moved to the talk page. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 01:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

P.I. Ellsworth I suppose I'm the one you're referring to as a troll, which is a gross mischaracterization of my contributions to the project. It is so frustrating to deal with tone policing for identifying a slur as a slur. I work extensively on topics related to Amazigh people and I often have members of the community expressing to me their justified frustration about the naming situation, but they don't have the resources or agency to participate in the discussion.

The allegation that that RM nomination statement was: a troll, when I was seeking a second opinion on what seems to both Uanfala and myself an unnecessary non-admin close that stifled civil discussion underway, is not convincing. I would not be surprised if the nom is actually working for the opposition and trying hard to avoid a name change is also a baseless aspersion—which, may you be reminded, is WP:MRNOT what move reviews are for. You are welcome to apologize if you would like to.

Dhtwiki I don't know what you're referring to with some of the ugly tone. Everything that came after my admittedly contentious opening question was WP policy, a quotation of cogent points raised by another user (from which that user's aggressive statement was not included), and sources. As for "unaddressed concerns," they surely could have been addressed had the discussion not been unilaterally and prematurely closed. إيان (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Apparently you need to read my words again. I can understand how, in this more modern age, you would think I was referring to you yourself as a "troll", but no, my exact words were "which is precisely what that RM nomination statement was: a troll". I'm of the old school, you see, having cut my internet teeth on Usenet, where trolling was taken to extremes that the modern age seldom sees. So the implication was that you were a "troller", as in you were fishing for hollers. The kids have turned trollers into trolls, but a troll is not to be confused with that nasty little imp that lives under a bridge and only comes out to scare little girls with pretty curls. Strictly speaking, a "troll" is what the troller writes to stimulate emotions and press people's buttons. That's what you did, you know. So you shouldn't be surprised if people decide to treat you like a troller and avoid you like the plague. If as you say your troll statement comes from your and others frustrations with the naming situation, then it is understandable if not tolerable. However frustrated you and those other editors feel, neither that nor anything else is justification for an inciteful opening nomination. As for all the other stuff, it can be dealt with during a normal, unemotional discussion that does not have nor need any further negativity from any editor. If you are genuinely concerned, then hereafter you are expected to make every effort to use neutral language and not play any more games with people's heads. Choose... your... words... carefully.... Make your arguments concise and to the point and try hard not to press people's buttons either on purpose or accidently. You have a long way to go to gain respect. Sincerely hope you succeed and that Wikipedia is better for it! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 06:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• Having read through the above, my initial puzzlement hasn't gone away. Yes, the nominator should have worded their proposal more carefully, but in terms of substance it was better than you average RM nomination. I still find it unacceptable that every administrative means has been used to stop the discussion, and all that appears to be based on a very fanciful interpretation of the nominator's motives and a disregard for both the substantial question at hand and for the other participants in the discussion. – Uanfala (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Well, okay. You and one other editor besides the nom agree that the MRV should be reopened. Sincerely hope this doesn't backfire and that lessons are learned from this. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 16:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

    Leaving a backroom review open for the minimum time is not the sort of thing that escalates problems. Knee-jerk speedy closes do sometimes exacerbate problems, elsewhere down the track.

    A good principle of closing is that if you have opinion to give, you should not be closing. Put your opinion in the discussion for others to agree to and another closer to cite. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the nominator should have worded their proposal more carefully From where do you get the opinion Wikipedia needs to overlook incivility, User:Uanfala? Why not close the proposal, let the nominator learn that the "anyone that doesn't agree with me is racist" schtick is not getting you anywhere, and hopefully a less incendiary proposal can be made down the line? If anything we should be discussing a block of the nominator - certainly not allow him to get away with it, which is what treating the move request with respect would do! CapnZapp (talk) 09:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

If the incivility is the problem, block the incivility user.

if the non-admin can’t block, they should not succumb to non-admin bias and do something else.

I don’t believe the incivility was block worthy, firstly because of the lack of escalating warnings.

Shutting down the review process because you are frustrated with your inability to block is not helpful. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

That's an interesting take. And it requires me to set the record straight. Just because we don't have the admin tools does not make us non-admins helpless. I am not a frustrated non-admin :>). I closed the review because I consider the RM's nom to be a troller, and we should not feed the trolls (troll defined by the incendiary verbage in the request, not by the troller). And I closed the review because I saw it as a troller trying to escalate their trolling. The only reason I reopened was because two editors other than the RM's nom thought the review should be reopened. As a non-admin I cannot ignore those editors, and there were no other editors who chimed in with support for the review's closure. So I am hoping that editors will AGF my closure as well as the reopening, and forgive me if I was wrong. Still think it was correct to close the review, though. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 11:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think you are frustrated, but think that others in frustration would see your speedy close as a precedent justifying their speedy close.

Thanks for reopening.

Among other things, I don’t think that any review forum should be ruled by people who are quick. And I was displeased that it would be closed before I had my chance to comment. Sometimes I deliberately wait 5+ days to think about it, and get the benefits of others’ comments.

I am not convinced that the editor is a troll. Has issues communicating, tends to alienate the audience, yes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)