Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 November

< 2019 October	Move review archives	2019 December >

2019 November[edit]

Trans porn – Overturn and relist. There is consensus in this discussion, that the decision to take WanderingWanda's evidence, which was not corroborated or backed by any other participant, did not represent a fair reading of the discussion, and that it should be relisted for further discussion. — Amakuru (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The closer opted to go with the "slight preference" of a single participant, WanderingWanda, completely ignoring the preferences of 4 others (not counting one who is now indef-blocked). While that single participant did engage in the most thorough analysis (though note that Mathglot did a simpler Google test and got a contrary result), both they themselves and the closer (on her talk page) appear to admit that that data can be interpreted in more than one way, which I would wholeheartedly agree with. Specifically, there is plenty of a basis there for not using the abbreviated and informal terms. At any rate, it is quite clear that all the other participants favored the longer versions of these terms, and, again, even the closer admitted that the evidence allowed for this on her talk page (There's an argument for "trans pornography" or "transgender pornography"...)

I therefore believe this close should be overturned and either re-closed as "Transgender pornography" or re-listed.

As permitted by the move review instructions (but with pings rather than talk page notices), notifying all previous participants of both discussions, excepting the closer, who will be getting a talk page message, and the indeffed user: Bohemian Baltimore, PC78, Mathglot, WanderingWanda, -andreas, In ictu oculi. -Crossroads- (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (involved): If the decision is overturned, I'd prefer it to be relisted as I think this could do with more discussion. For example, Crossroads questions the use of abbreviated and informal terms, but formality actually wasn't discussed at all in the RM. ("Trans" is not an informal term, incidentally: no dictionary lists it as such. "Porn" is listed as "informal" in dictionaries, however.)

On another note, I don't think it's fair to say that Sceptre was "completely ignoring" participants. Sceptre looked at all the arguments and weighed them, which is what you're supposed to do, per WP:RMCI. WanderingWanda (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse The common name arguments for the name are a strong argument and it is completely reasonable for the closer to weigh them heavily. PaleAqua (talk) 05:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. <uninvolved> Well within any good closer's ability to make sound judgements. Admittedly a tough call; however, it was a good closure IMHO. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 07:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- What is “closer discretion”? Did you make it up? Moulded from “admin discretion”? Non admins don’t get the privilege of exercising admin discretion. That privilege is subject to the tough test of recognition of ability to read consensus in difficult cases, and communicate it well, with the right temperament, as is tested at RfA. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not a term moulded from anything, just two words put together to describe my endorsement of this closure. I've altered the sentence to hopefully be clearer, and I apologize if the previous clarity was not up to your good faith standards. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 18:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good faith?? Non admins don’t get discretion for their closings. Discretion implies that another could close another way. If different people would close different ways, that makes it “controversial” and controversial closes should not be done by non admins. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. The alternative suggestion put forward by WanderingWanda, irresepctive of its merits, was not commented on or endorsed by anyone else in the discussion. With the discussion only open for seven days there was no good reason not to relist this for further discussion, and at the very least a more detailed comment was required by the closer. PC78 (talk) 11:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. No solid reason that the article shouldn't be called "Transgender pornography" instead. In other words, no solid reason that the terms should not be spelled out like we consistently spell out "transgender" and "pornography" for our article titles and categories. WP:Common name has nothing to do with this. Also, it is clear the consensus was that the longer versions of these terms should be used. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Relist While a good common name argument was made a consensus is required to confirm the informal "porn" is an encyclopedic title. Common name is only one aspect of Wikipedia:Article titles which specifically states consensus is required. Ribbet32 (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (relist). WP:BADNAC. There is no evidence in the discussion of “User:WanderingWanda's COMMONNAME analysis is the one that holds the most sway”. Most sway? Swayed who? I see no participant sway. The closer? If the closer, then that’s a Supervote. Also note: WanderngWanda’s analysis makes a lot if use of unreliable data, as so it needs others to look and comment. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: On the talk page of the original closer, both -andreas and In ictu oculi agreed that that close was not appropriate. They did not comment here however. I think their clear feelings should be taken into account as part of the consensus on the matter being discussed there and here, feelings they apparently have not changed despite having been pinged. That is, this official move review should not be penalized for having done a preliminary discussion at the original closer's talk page per instructions and because some editors commented there instead. -Crossroads- (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2019 Najran attack – Closure endorsed. There is consensus that the closure is endorsed. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Hi, I have tried to talk to Sceptre about this and it has been more than 10 days and he has not responded. If you look at the discussion in the article talk page you will see that I and Applodion agreed that the article should be moved to "Operation victory from God". Amakuru, however, didnt agree on the move and when we responded to his argument he stopped replying. He thought the the attack was in Najran but that was a false media story. Even the Houthis didn't say that the ground attack was in Najran. Notice that he stopped replying after we told him that and proved that him. It seems that his vote was a reaction of this bold move but I cant tell for sure. He also said that the name is POV but didn't explain how it is a POV, it's the name of the operation. In any case the RM should have not be closed with No consensus because there are two editors who have agreed on the move and an editor who stopped responding after proven wrong. I am want to note that the closer talk page is full of complaints about his moves.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. <uninvolved> Closure acceptable. Suggest editors strengthen their arguments and try again in a few months to garner consensus for a name change. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 18:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Complaints on closer's talk pages are a closer's condition "normal". I consider it bad form to bring them up here at MRV. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 19:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. <uninvolved> I understand how frustrating it can be when an editor makes a 'bad' argument (from your point of view), you 'disprove' their argument (from your POV), and then they stop responding. I've been there. But RM participants aren't required to defend their positions when challenged. And even in light of the rebuttals from those supporting the move, I think Amkaru's oppose argument has substance (both prongs of it - the level of usage in RS of the proposed title, and the POV concern) and should not be discounted. It's unfortunate the RM was poorly attended even after being relisted, but it happens. As for the closer not responding to your challenge of the close on their talk page, it's possible they would have been more willing to discuss if you hadn't added this comment one minute later attacking their competency: Also from your talk page you seem to have some problems with not properly closing RM discussions. You'll catch more bees with honey than vinegar. Colin M (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Colin M <uninvolved> Difficult to see how this could be closed any other way, the discussion was relisted and open for a total of 17 days so plenty of time was given. I do think it's poor form for the closer not to respond when challenged though. PC78 (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Crimean–Nogai slave raids in Eastern Europe – Endorsed. There is consensus that the close was a decent reading of the discussion, and certainly the ensuing move review should not have taken place. As Srnec notes, if anyone wants to propose a new variant on the title, it might be reasonable to have a follow-up RM, but the close stands for now. — Amakuru (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Need help from administrator to control an edit war

Please move this to the correct place, thanks. The problem is Crimean–Nogai slave raids in Eastern Europe. Is there some formal procedure to keep these people polite and organized until a consensus is reached? I was involved once and gave up. The history is very messy, but it seems that there are two distinct problems: 1. multiple move/renames, 2. should the raid list be retained? Given the complexity it might be better to place the discussion off the talk page, if that is possible. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I read a stronger-than-rough consensus in support of User:Srnec's proposal. I do not approve of the unfamiliar non-admin's close, it was not clear enough, nor of the NAC-er's "and if a better title is agreed upon in the future, the article can be moved again", which can be read as rendering the close unclear and equivocating. Experienced closers never close like that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment / Endorse (involved). The raid list is an entirely separate issue that has nothing to do with MR and is a normal dispute over article content. For the requested move - what exactly are you looking for? You haven't proposed anything. The RM to be reopened? It moved back to the old title, Tatar raids? Removal of "slave" from the title? User:Devlet Geray moved the article post-RM, which I reverted as not being equivalent to the close, but it's not a move war just yet, just a normal boring revert. SnowFire (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I suggested that an administrator become involved because there were too many move/revert/renames without a clear consensus. This much renaming is not normal by my experience and should be avoided in my POV. I suggest that there be a organized discussion of the title. Once a consensus is reached it should be endorsed by an outside administrator and the final title established. I agree that the raid-list is a separate issue. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 05:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- But the "organized discussion" you desire happened? It was the requested move discussion you participated in. SnowFire (talk) 06:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How many more editors need to comment for this discussion to have been considered closed? There was a clear consensus for moving, and the chosen title was not opposed.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. <uninvolved> MRV is probably not the correct venue for what the nom wants? Good closure and should stand as is. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 18:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The talk page is a mess and I could find no clear/ final consensus. All I saw was a long series of move/reverts which would probably go on forever if someone did not intervene. If all of you people are sure that you are finished reverting each other, this discussion can be closed. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 00:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The result of the renaming is not substantiated in fact and, moreover, non-consensual. It was proposed to rename the article to "Crimean-Nogai raids", almost all spoke out for that name, and one participant came and closed the discussion, renaming the article, according to his POV, to "Crimean-Nogai slave raids" --Devlet Geray (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment. User:Devlet Geray inexplicably decided to move the article again despite this move review still being open; I've reverted to the RM close result. Devlet, if you feel the closure was improper, please make your case here first to overturn the RM closure. SnowFire (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The children seem to have gotten loose again. Could some administrator explain to them how a move/rename is done? Benjamin Trovato (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a "pox upon both of your houses" situation. I was solely reverting to the result of the Requested Move discussion, so I'd appreciate not being called a child. The proper way to handle this is for Devlet Geray to make a case here that the RM closure should be overturned or relisted, or seek permission to open a new RM - not to unilaterally move the article again. SnowFire (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved) without prejudice to a new RM to determine if "slave" should be removed from the new title. Srnec (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Digital automated identification system – Overturn and relist. — Amakuru (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Moves were proposed, and I objected to the proposed titles on the basis that these are proper names. The discussion was closed without consensus and without relisting, and the pages were moved, based on a misunderstanding of guidelines. Peter James (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. Premature close. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. <uninvolved> Unresolved issues, so closer was expected to reopen/relist when approached on talk page. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 18:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2019 Prince Edward station attack – Procedural close – new RM closed this date with no consensus found. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 16:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

New evidence find out that all 3 participators of the RM "discussion" , one of them is a sockmaster SPA that at that time not blocked and discovered (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Angelalive) (And left only me and another fairly new user). Also, as stated in Wikipedia:Article titles, "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject.", so based on the SPA behaviour and "not a vote" policy (i.e. is it an evidence based discussion?), not sure the result need to be redetermined to "no consensus but can be reopen when new RS came out" or "no consensus to move" or "no consensus to not move". Matthew hk (talk) 09:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedurally endorse. You have already opened a new RM. Calidum 15:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.