Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 February

Angelus Peak (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Put simply, I don't believe that the arguments made in favour of the move are sufficient in the context of the evidence to justify a move. As highlighted in the opposing comments in the move request, there are no sources in the past decade which used the proposed name - despite this, all supporting !votes cited WP:COMMONNAME (or seconded others who did). There is a lack or policy- or evidence-based arguments in favour of the move, in contrast to a range of policies cited and evidence provided as to why the move isn't justified. I'd also note that some of the !votes in favour of the move are near boilerplate comments which appear on every dual place name move request, regardless of the actual circumstances of the case, but I think that's secondary to the issue around the lack of basis for the move to have occurred. While I appreciate it can be tough to ascertain the common name of places which are mentioned so infrequently, I don't believe that gives the ability to just decide on what the common name is based on vibes and personal thoughts on dual names. Turnagra (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Endorse (involved). Three arguments were presented; MOS:SLASH, WP:CONCISE, and WP:COMMONNAME. The commonname argument was not as strong as initially thought, with Turnagra finding a source using a different name from the current title of the article and the proposed title, but it still applied as the name was more common than the current title. The MOS:SLASH and WP:CONCISE arguments were not rebutted. BilledMammal (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The MOS:SLASH argument was rebutted, and has been rebutted in every one of the dozens of move requests along these lines you've made where you've tried to cite it. WP:CONCISE is obvious so I'm not going to rebut that. I'd also note that the WP:PRECISION argument against the move wasn't rebutted either, and plenty of sources were provided which use the original name. I'd also question the framing that the commonname argument was not as strong as initially thought, and instead argue that it was non-existent. WP:COMMONNAME doesn't mean "more common than x", it means the common name full stop - but the proposed name isn't more common, so that's a moot point anyway. Turnagra (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The MOS:SLASH argument was rebutted by vaguely, and incorrectly, hand waving at WP:NZNC; this hand-wave has been dismissed in past moves by closers, and was not convincing to editors in this move either.

The other sources you provided were rebutted by demonstrating that they weren't independent, an argument that other editors found convincing as evidenced by their endorsement of those arguments. The MOS:PRECISION argument was also rebutted, by demonstrating that the proposed title was a primary redirect to the current title. I also note that even if there was a precision issue and disambiguation was required the previous title would still be incorrect, per WP:NZNC rules on disambiguation. BilledMammal (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

it means the common name full stop - it, and the underpinning WP:NATURAL, mean more common than the other names being considered. This is most often seen in natural disambiguation discussions, where the most common name is not available, and editors consider them commonness of alternative names to determine which form of natural disambiguation, if any form, to use.

In this case, the existing title was less common than both the proposed title and Maniniaro/Mount Angelus; WP:COMMONNAME applies to arguments both for the proposed title and for Maniniaro/Mount Angelus, but would not apply to arguments between the proposed title and Maniniaro/Mount Angelus. BilledMammal (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe you're misrepresenting that close - my read of that is that WP:NZNC on its own isn't a justification for using a dual name, which is the context WP:NZNC was used in that discussion. By your own admission in that very RM, what WP:NZNC does say is that we use the spaced slash format when the dual name is the most suitable title - ie. not the outdated parenthetical format used by some dual names, to distinguish it from parenthetical disambiguation.

As an aside, I'm perplexed at your fondness for the WP:NZNC rules on disambiguation given your general disdain for the rest of the naming conventions and your lack of willingness to engage on them. Turnagra (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

As an aside, I'm perplexed at your fondness for the WP:NZNC rules on disambiguation given your general disdain for the rest of the naming conventions and your lack of willingness to engage on them. I disagree with that statement, and ask that you focus this discussion on the content, not the editor. BilledMammal (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not the one who first brought the disambiguation guidelines into this discussion, when they're completely irrelevant to the move request, but noted. Turnagra (talk) 03:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn. Inadequate explanation and apparently the closer doesn’t appreciate the need for a quality explanation in the closing of any contested discussion. Inexperienced NAC-ers shouldn’t be closing contested discussions, and more objectively, should not be closing contested discussions as if it was done on their coin toss. This sort of thing disrespects the entire process. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

2nd look, having forgotten …
* Overturn. Unexplained Supervote of what does not look like a consensus. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, didn't you already recommend overturning that a few days ago? – Uanfala (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, thanks. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn. The nomination was only tentatively based on a WP:COMMONNAME argument; when this was actually explored in depth, it turned out that there is something resembling an agreement among opposing sides that it hard to speak of a single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used in this case (as a side comment: arguing that the current name is not the common name is not by itself a reason to move -- there isn't always a true common name). So maybe the reason to move would have been something else. There was no consensus on any other reason to move. The "per WP:COMMONNAME" !votes that don't explain how this convention would still apply have no force of argument behind them. Ultimately, this discussion did not produce a consensus. Maybe the closer thought otherwise, but he should have given a proper explanation. It may be that the closer simply counted votes. —Alalch E. 11:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Alalch E.: (as a side comment: arguing that the current name is not the common name is not by itself a reason to move -- there isn't always a true common name) - however, arguing that a name is more common than the current name is a reason to move. BilledMammal (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Not on its own. If there are multiple names that are in common use, but none of them are overwhelmingly more common than any of the others then saying that one alternative name is slightly more common than the current name is not, on its own an argument in favour of a move. For example if the current name is used 3 times, and two alternatives 4 and 2 times, saying that alternative one is more common than the others is true but such small differences are highly susceptible to sampling errors and there needs to be a much stronger justification that the proposal is the common name. That justification might exist, but if so it needs to be actively presented in the discussion and needs to achieve consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Overturn. The arguments cited in favour of the move were fully refuted by those who left rationales for their votes and these were not rebutted. If we assign equal weight to those who did not give a rationale then there was no consensus, if we accord more weight to those who do give a rationale then there is clear consensus against the move. 08:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs)

• The arguments cited in favour of the move were fully refuted by those who left rationales for their votes and these were not rebutted Even if you consider the WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:SLASH arguments successfully rebutted, there was no attempt to rebut the WP:CONCISE argument. BilledMammal (talk) 09:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse The WIAN argument was more convincingly rejected by the supporters, and SLASH and CONCISE also point to the shorter name, even if it was less clear who was right about the COMMONNAME. Only one of the oppose votes substantiated their position. That said, a closing statement was mandatory in a case like this. Avilich (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse per Billed Mammal and Avilich (Involved). Per WP:COMMONNAME, we use the common name (if there is one) in English-language sources. As New Zealand law mandates these double names then we can discount official sources as they have to use them. However, the common name, particularly in speech, is clearly never going to be "Maniniaro slash Angelus Peak"! One or the other, but not both. The COMMONNAME rationale is thus entirely valid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  Dual names are used frequently in New Zealand speech, but regardless - page moves should be based on evidence, not on vague assertions of what the common name is "going to be". And in this instance, there was none. I'm also curious as to your emphasis on English-language sources, given everything in this discussion was in English. Are you attempting to discount names with Māori origins? Turnagra (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  No, I'm pointing out that this is English Wikipedia, not Māori Wikipedia. I would expect Māori names to take precedence in the latter. But given there is a clear English-language name this should be preferred on English Wikipedia without major evidence that it should not be. I should point out that I am always opposed to translation of non-English names on Wikipedia when there is no commonly used English name, or even when there is an existing English name but it is not so commonly used as the native name. But that is clearly not the case here, especially given New Zealand is a largely English-speaking country. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn. (Note: while uninvolved in this particular move request, I have been involved in other RMs in this topic area.) As Turnagra pointed out when opening the move review, the WP:COMMONNAME argument that was leveled by most supporters of the move was weak, and was even identified as such by the RM nominator. Most other arguments raised on either side of the RM were similarly contested. Thus, this reads to me like a discussion that should have been closed as "no consensus". ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consenus. <uninvolved> In addition to agreement with the above args for overturning, it should also be noted that concision must sometimes give way to precision. This article should not have been renamed, the close was not reasonable, and the move should be reverted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 22:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn (uninvolved). I’m all for CONCISE as a tie-breaker, but not when the longer name is clearly the COMMONNAME, as was demonstrated by the opposition. Turnagra even (accurately) cited Google maps in the RM. And SLASH was addressed too. All of this was ignored by the supporters, and by the closer, who neglected to even provide an explanation. —В²C ☎ 16:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The only argument against SLASH was WP:NZNC which was in turn also addressed. Avilich (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment <uninvolved> – if there's a consensus that this closure wasn't correct (and I have no opinion about that), I think the right outcome would be to relist rather than to overturn to no consensus. The RM had never been relisted, and further discussion might attract additional participants and/or encourage previous !voters to engage with the arguments more thoroughly. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)'
• RELIST actually. This is a big complicated issue and it deserves a really wide audience, possibly even an RfC. The issues presented here are way beyond most requested moves. Red Slash 18:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Aguascalientes City (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Summary of the move request: roughly eight years ago, Mexican cities which are named the same as their containing state (like Durango, Aguascalientes, Oaxaca, etc.) began to be moved to the WP:NATURALly disambiguated Durango City, etc. The requested mass move at Aguascalientes City blindly asserted that these naturally disambiguated names were neither common nor consistent.

I proved quite readily that no, they were highly consistent with how other cities (like Quebec City, Luxembourg City, etc.) were named throughout the globe, and provided scads of research showing that two cities in particular, Querétaro City and Chihuahua City, were definitely in common use in English. (Another editor provided similar evidence for Oaxaca City.) I went way, way, way above and beyond in sourcing an embarrassingly large amount of evidence in favor of Chihuahua City in particular.

Absolutely no evidence was provided by supporters that the "X City" names (for ANY of these cities!) were not common.

I provided the exhaustive evidence on only two of the fifteen or so articles up for moving because it was frankly quite exhausting to do so , and not at all because there isn't also evidence out there that Guanajuato City is commonly used. Indeed, I'd wager that that evidence is out there, and nobody provided any backing to the contrary.

The closer, User:Sceptre, instead decided to close the request in favor of the movers (who, again, provided a lot of fire but very little evidence), except for the case of Chihuahua City itself (and, upon protest, Oaxaca City and Querétaro City as well). The explicit justification for this was that "There is a rough enough consensus that — except for Chihuahua, where documentary evidence has been provided to the contrary — that in common parlance the cities are generally referred to without the word "City" suffixed." In other words, the evidence that I exhaustively sourced for Chihuahua (and, somewhat less so, was also sourced for Querétaro and Oaxaca) only applied to those three cities and could not be generalized to the other eight; in other words, "a rough consensus" doesn't require evidence, but can be defeated by evidence, but only if it's extremely specific to the case at hand.

With love, that makes no sense to me. (Funnily enough, it also makes no sense to my dear colleague Born2Cycle, who supported the move and is also flummoxed, but from a completely different perspective--I'm sure he'll explain below!) I would frankly like for the whole move to be closed as "no consensus" because there was no consensus, and if someone wants to move Tlaxcala City itself, let them make a move request for just that one so that people have time to source and support their cases for that one city in particular. Red Slash 18:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse Close (mostly). (Involved) Let’s be clear. While WP:NATURAL prohibits natural disambiguation when usage of the secondary common name in question is obscure, it does not require use of a non-obscure secondary common name over parenthetic disambiguation of the most common name. Which is preferred in a given case depends on a variety of factors and is ultimately decided by consensus. In this RM it was proposed to move 11 cities from the Name City natural disambiguation format to the Name (city) parenthetic disambiguation format. The closer correctly found consensus to move eight of those, but then WP:SUPERVOTEd to not move the three for which some evidence was provided that usage of the secondary common name for these was non-obscure. But, that decision incorrectly presumes that NATURAL requires use of a non-obscure secondary common name over parenthetic disambiguation when it’s available. But that’s not the case in policy, guidelines, or convention. Omitting moving three of the 11 was a blatant SUPERVOTE decision and those should be moved as well because there was just as much consensus support to move those three as there was to move the other eight. Furthermore, it wouldn’t matter if the natural disambiguation was not obscure for all of the 11—what matters is there was consensus to move all 11 for a variety of reasons including not wanting to mislead users by conveying the natural disambiguation is more common than it is, and for consistency. —В²C ☎ 22:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I figured you'd be among the first to respond I disagree with you, of course, but I do respect you very much. I don't think there was any risk of confusing readers, but you did, and neither of us seemed to be particularly successful at convincing anyone! Red Slash 22:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

True, and I was wrong to mention some of the Support reasons here, but, regardless of why, consensus did agree with me regarding the question of whether the articles should be retitled, so the closer was right to move the eight accordingly, and wrong to not move the other three. —В²C ☎ 00:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Relist, I do think there were some good arguments brought up to not move, and I don't see an overwhelming consensus to make the close. I was one of the voters that went "support", but with closer analysis I feel inclined to change my mind. Ortizesp (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse and move the other three as well per В²C. (Involved) -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
• Relist individually (involved). I think both the bulk nomination and its closure were made with the best of intentions, but some oversights and mistaken assumptions led to an improper close. A significant element of the bulk nomination was the assumption that the "X City" form was not common for any of the 11 listed cities. Spot checks performed on three of them showed the assumption was not true for any of the three — and suggested it might not be true for any of the others. The closure accepted that the three which were researched should be exempted, but that all others which hadn't been should be moved, despite the absence of supporting evidence.

Given the divided responses and interpretations of title policies, and particularly the evidence raised, no clear consensus emerged for the bulk move. I think trying again with individual RMs would be better than attempting the en masse approach again. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:44, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse Close (involved). There were good arguments on both sides and the closer made a call. The problem I have with the close is that it mentioned only on the common name argument. That is a weaker argument and I sympathize with User:Red Slash's flummoxedness (?). However, more editors relied on the (I believe stronger) principle of "not wanting to mislead users by conveying the natural disambiguation is more common than it is" as User:Born2cycle puts it. And this was User:Moscow Mule's single rationale in the original request. In short, the close itself was proper even if the rationale was not.

As far as the severance of three of the cities goes, it was a bold move based on the discussion. However, evidence in three cases cannot be assumed to apply to others. Absence of evidence does not necessarily mean evidence of absence, but it might mean that there is is not enough evidence to invalidate the non-COMMONAME arguments of me and other editors. —  AjaxSmack  00:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse Close, I guess, except for the 3 that now break WP:CONSISTENCY (involved). But still ready and willing to discuss this further if another venue can be found. I'm discomfited by the sweeping generalization that "cities with the same name as their larger surrounding geopolitical entity are called XXXX City" when plenty of counter-examples exist: Cork (city) has been repeatedly invoked, of course, but WP also has Durham, England (despite a lot of very good internet hits — perhaps as good as those used Oaxaca and Chihuahua — for "Durham City") and reference was make on Talk:Aguascalientes (city) to Kano (city) in Nigeria and Fukushima (city) et al. in Japan, as well as to the solutions found (or stumbled on) by Argentina (La Rioja, Argentina) and Brazil (São Paulo and São Paulo (state)). Other possible solutions were raised there, too: full formal names for some (Santiago de Querétaro, Tlaxcala de Xicohténcatl), going back to [[City, State]], where they were for many years (User:Red Slash thought the repetition of Chihuahua, Chihuahua, was "absurd" and "difficult to type" back in 2014, but he seemed intrigued by — or at least not to dismiss out of hand — my suggestion of using the abbreviated state name (San Luis Potosí, SLP, etc.). But as long as the unqualified, ambiguous names can be used to refer to either the city or the state ("I had a coffee near the docks in Veracruz yesterday") in a way that residents of Kansas City, Oklahoma City, Mexico City (in English: the digression into road signs was interesting, but perhaps not entirely germane) and Welwyn Garden City can't, then we're doing the wider world a disservice by giving the impression that "this is what they are called in English". And if WP internal policies (esp. WP:NATURAL) allow that, then perhaps they need examining and restating, too. Moscow Mule (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Health New Zealand (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

This requested move was closed with the move being not to the requested title, but to another title proposed in the discussion. The rational for this decision is not substantiated by the discussion. On their talk page, the closer stated that one user's argument was the most persuasive to them, and to other users. However, there is no evidence at all in the discussion that other users have agreed that the argument presented was the most persuasive. The closer has not clarified why the particular argument was most persuasive to them, but due to the complete lack of evidence for the support of the new title in the actual move discussion, it is a clear WP:SUPERVOTE, and should be overturned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spekkios (talk • contribs) 08:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse: When it comes to discussing whether X or Y is the common name, if X has a decent amount of reasoning behind it but Y just appeals to a vague platitude, then the closer should go with X even if the headcount is split. Sceptre (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  This is not what occured. The discussion was on whether X or Y is the common name, and someone proposed Z. You closed in favour of Z, without evidence of any consensus developed for Z. --Spekkios (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  Quick point of order--please edit this to say "Endorse as closer" Red Slash 19:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse: The majority view was that the article needs to be moved: A majority agreed that the Maori name of the institution needs to be represented in the article name seeing how the usage in media coverage has shifted toward the new official name. A minority view was that the article does not need to be moved. Somewhere in the middle of the discussion it was convincingly revealed that the originally proposed name 'Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand' comes from a misunderstanding: Te Whatu Ora is the Maori name, and Health New Zealand is the English name. Sometimes, confusingly, they are used together by the media (including with brackets or with a hyphen/dash), but this is not encyclopedic: Of course the article will not bear a duplicate title in two different languages. After attention was drawn to this, one additional move advocate expressly supported 'Te Whatu Ora', and another was ambiguous in whether they support 'Te Whatu Ora' or specifically 'Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand', but it's reasonable to think that they were not opposed to 'Te Whatu Ora'. In this situation, WP:OTHEROPTIONS and WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE both weakly apply -- weakly because there was still some substantive opposition to moving at all; but -- (1) there was a prevailing opinion that the article needs to be moved; (2) the exact proposed title was very likely unusable; (3) careful analysis reveals that the proposed third option, 'Te Whatu Ora', actually had pretty strong support (for example, Turnagra had already previously indicated that they also support 'Te Whatu Ora'). Reasonable close all in all, but 'no consensus' would also have been fine. —Alalch E. 23:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

A similar subject name-wise: Te Aka Whai Ora; note how the title isn't Te Aka Whai Ora Māori Health Authority (and how really terrible such a title would be). This is not just my opinion, the RM cleared this up sufficiently well. —Alalch E. 23:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

That article was moved after the closure of this RM. I'm also not seeing how any of the later comments are ambiguous in their support: one supported "Te Whatu Ora", and three other comments stated either that English should be used in the title, or that the proposed name is more recognisable to international readers. To respond to your points specifically, 2: The unsuitability of the proposed name is not demonstrated in the discussion, 3: I don't see how "Te Whatu Ora" has stronger support in the discussion, as just as many comments point out that not using English would be unsuitable as support the name "Te Whatu Ora". --Spekkios (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Can confirm - I originally preferred the proposed title with Te Whatu Ora as 2nd place, but I found HTGS' point to be persuasive in favour of just the eventual title. Turnagra (talk) 09:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Good enough. Allow a fresh RM no sooner than two months after the close of this MRV. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  The closing statement was inadequate. It could be relisted for a better close, but it don’t think the discussion was on its way to a consensus beyond a rough consensus to move away from the current. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• I would've closed this as "no consensus". While the close was reasonable-ish, it wasn't explained at all, which is inappropriate for a NOGOODOPTIONS close--WP:TROUT for Sceptre. I think a follow-up move is appropriate. I wrote WP:NOGOODOPTIONS literally for situations like this. Anyway, the only reasonable option is to temporarily endorse closure and repropose immediately to the dual-language title as per NOGOODOPTIONS. Red Slash 21:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Small housekeeping thing, I'm wondering if it might be worth having a bullet or something at the start of your comment to signify it as its own thing and not a continuation of the above, especially given the lack of bold at the start? Turnagra (talk) 04:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Red Slash 07:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• Relist. Per Red Slash, we simply cannot accept a NOGOODOPTIONS close without ample explanation. The merits of the decision may be valid, but they must be clearly stated. —-В²C ☎ 00:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  Well said (even though technically I suppose we're on opposing sides here, I think we have the same mindset). Let me try to edit WP:NOGOODOPTIONS to see if I can make it explicit, going forward, that such closes require a little extra care in the closing statement. Red Slash 00:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Kyte (band) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

The closer here did not weigh any policy-based arguments in making their close. Which would have been difficult, because essentially none were made. One editor at least stated that there were multiple entries on the dab page, but then just stated without any evidence that the "historical renown" of the band in question did not overwhelm the combined notability of the other entries, which is not policy. The other editors baldly stated there was "clearly" no primarytopic, or "doubted" there was one, again with nothing to back anything up. In my !oppose, I cited pageviews showing the band article receives over an order of magnitude more usage than the other topics, which is one of the two criteria at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The other topics, by the way, are a recently defunct radio station, two other radio stations that have not used the KYTE letters for over 30 years, and stub articles for a Norwegian hamlet, a creek in Illinois, and a surname with four entries. Forcing readers to the bottom of a dab page for the likeliest-sought article hurts navigation. I would suggest overturning the close to "no consensus". Dohn joe (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Relist I have to agree... I've never seen a move request like this. Well, there was one recently, at Talk:Bejeweled, and I had to absolutely unload all the big guns because the request was ludicrous and everyone was going right along with it. I think you might have understated the case a bit. Sometimes we have to be a bit melodramatic to get people to pay attention. Anyway, for you to have made your case and for everyone else to have just completely ignored it is weird. A relist could lead to actual discussion. Red Slash 06:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

• Relist. This discussion needs to be memorialized as the RM version of WP:ATA, distilled into pure essence. "Not primary". "Per nom". "seems like a no-brainer". "There are entries". —Alalch E. 01:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
• Relist. I'd suggest to the closer that there are vanishingly few situations in which it's appropriate to both comment in and close a contentious RM. At the closer's user talk, they suggest that their comment is to be read as a summary of their closing rationale, but it contains arguments that were not brought up by the participants.
  That said, I wouldn't get my hopes up if I were the OP. PTOPIC leaves a lot of leeway for editors to just state their belief that an article is not the with primary topic with respect to long-term significance, and there are not many objective points to make in favor or in opposition to such a position. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Marash (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (No discussion on closer's talk page)

The name Maraş is current, and 16 times more common. Should have been moved there. – anlztrk (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Open new RM: This was two years ago. I don't think I'd close it the same way today (I'd probably relist or ignore it, really), but it'd be significantly more productive to open a new RM with that argument rather than introduce an argument that was never brought up in a two-year-old RM. Vaticidalprophet 12:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse. The March 2021 RM was properly run and properly closed. Feel free to initiate a new proposal. I recommend that you address the criticism of “Maraş” present in the old RM in a better, new, RM nomination. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

1948 Palestinian exodus (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

The numbers are even more skewed in this request than the prior one, which was closed by the same closer, and challenged with experienced admins and other page movers finding that close to be incorrect, even if there were not a consensus to overturn it. When a closer's close was neither endorsed nor overturned, for that same closer to make the same close and further unilaterally impose a one year moratorium is absurd. The idea that "no consensus" means no further discussion is a further absurdity, no consensus always means more discussion, not an enforced halt on correcting a NPOV violation, in which one side prevails by filibuster. I an actually astonished that Sceptre closed this discussion again given the objections to their last close. But in this move request, by the numbers alone, which yes NOTVOTE but can still be instructive, we have 13 supports to 8 opposes. Now look at the opposes. Several are entirely specious and inapplicable. Not all Palestinian refugees were involuntarily deported or expelled. Yes, that is why the move request includes the word flight. Not all Palestinian refugees were involuntarily deported or expelled. Again, that is why the proposed title includes flight. sources currently cited in the article use the term "exodus", so that's clearly an established way to refer to this event. Sources also in the article use the term expulsion and flight, the argument is a non-sequitur. Next, WP:COMMONNAME is about names, not descriptive titles. It simply does not apply to either title, it is not an applicable argument. Beyond the fact that there is an over 60% super-majority in support of the move, in a move request that has established proof of stealth canvassing in opposition, that has multiple users in opposition making their first edits in months to en.wp to oppose, the sources, the policies, and the discussion all have a consensus in support of renaming. And the idea that a non-admin should repeatedly be closing discussions in a CT topic when their judgment has already been questioned and then further unilaterally impose a moratorium is, again, absurd. Nableezy 17:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• IMMEDIATE OVERTURN - the same closer cannot, cannot, cannot make the same close twice. I'm not even reading the rest of the nomination--the same closer cannot close twice. User:Sceptre what the heck are you doing? WP:RMCI has banned WP:INVOLVED closers for years. Red Slash 18:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  INVOLVED explicitly doesn't apply where interaction has been done in an administrative role, which is what RM closures are. Otherwise we end up in situations where discussions languish in the backlog because no one can, or will, do the closure. RMCI is an essay that has plenty of good advice, but essays — in so much as they are not vetted and participation in their writing is minimal – cannot override policy. Sceptre (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  This is ARBCOM-level stuff. No way in a million years can you possibly be deluding yourself into thinking that, were it not for you, no one would ever close this request. There's no excuse. Overturn it yourself. Red Slash 22:13, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse. Requested moves are supposed to last for a week, maybe two at the most. This requested move has effectively gone on for six months. If there was a consensus forthcoming, then it would've been evident literally months ago. As it is, there's a group of editors who — without denying how noble their intentions are, — are getting way too invested in editing these articles to the point of being disruptive. One would've hoped that after the second move review closed, then maybe we could've had some respite from a discussion that had gone stale months ago, but instead some editors decided "I didn't hear that" and opened an identical move request less than an hour after MRV2 closed. One might think their aim was to game consensus instead of gaining it, and it was with that in mind that the closure was made with both of the recent move requests in mind. It's time to put the matter to bed and get back to actual productive editing. Sceptre (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  I am not going to specifically comment about the close because twas I (not "some editors") that initiated the RM for reasons that I thought I had adequately explained in the nom. It seems rather unreasonable to characterize that as "incredibly disruptive". But I will submit to a judgement here on that. Selfstudier (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  This move request followed a no consensus move review of a no consensus close, that at least one admin and one experienced closer saw a consensus for. You are the one gaming here, enforcing your own view without even engaging in the arguments in either close. You are the one imposing a moratorium that you emphatically do not have authority to impose. Honestly, I think you should be topic-banned from closing ARBPIA discussions given this sequence. Truly absurd. Beyond that, WP:INVOLVED is about administrative actions, and you, for years now, are not an administrator. WP:RMCI however considers a move closer involved if You have ever closed such a move request. Your close violated WP:RMCI, beyond the fact that it, once again, neglected to actually evaluate the arguments in the discussion. nableezy - 19:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  A) One can make an administrative action without being an administrator; B) RMCI is purely advisory (and does contain plenty of good advice!) and not a policy that can be "violated"; and C) "no consensus" at MRV effectively endorses the close in most cases, and a RM that had been effectively going on for the better part of half a year is not one of the exceptions that proves the rule. I apologise for being flippant, but there are surely better things you can do with your time than arguing with people online. The Palestinian cause surely does not depend on the title of one Wikipedia article, right? Sceptre (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  A) Close calls in administrative tasks are left to administrators, which, once again, you are not. B) WP:RMCI is an explanatory essay, linked to in WP:RM. If you feel it is optional to abide by it then you should not be closing moves, full stop. C) no consensus to overturn is emphatically not consensus to endorse. D) You know fuckall about me, and my purpose here is to edit an online encyclopedia, not anything to do with the Palestinian cause. Surely there is something you can do better with your time than attempting to arrogate on to yourself powers you do not have to enforce your personal positions in topics you do not understand. I apologize for being flippant. nableezy - 20:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn. As a prior closer, the closer is WP:INVOLVED. Admonish the closer for this breach. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn (involved) as clearly in breach of WP:INVOLVED, in spirit if not in letter (the latter appears to be debatable). Also in breach of the longstanding precepts at WP:RMCI. Worse still, the closer remains a long way off acknowledging this. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn as quoting WP:RMCI: An involved editor, admin or otherwise, may not close a move request (with one exception, detailed below). You are considered involved if:... You have ever closed such a move request

The only exemption is that the proposer of a move request can withdraw their own request in the face of unanimous opposition. While I agree with Sceptre's take that As it is, there's a group of editors who — without denying how noble their intentions are, — are getting way too invested in editing these articles to the point of being disruptive, this is unfortunately the nature of editing in the Israel-Palestine conflict topic area (or anything that is highly contentious). If you don't like it, you can try solving the underlying conflict yourself.

Highly controversial situations such as this require the strongest adherence to the rules. This should've been closed by someone who had no involvement whatsoever, because that wouldn't have led to this lengthy prolonged discussion. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 14:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

This should've been closed by someone who had no involvement whatsoever, because that wouldn't have led to this lengthy prolonged discussion. The prolonged discussion and move review would have happened regardless of who had closed the discussion. Certainly in the case of "no consensus". Vpab15 (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Vpab15: You're completely right, but the move review is probably going to result in an overturned now because of who closed this discussion. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• 'Endorse! <uninvolved> Yes, Sceptre, should not have closed a second RM on the same talk page for the same title. I wouldn't have done that and few closers would. It could be argued that opening a fresh RM with virtually no new arguments on the same day, 6 January 2023, just 35 minutes after the previous MRV closed, would be considered damned disruptive. So I endorse this closure and its moratorium strongly and with the same gusto that this RM closer exhibits even under the duress of this seemingly forEVER ongoing Move Review issue. Let's put this one to bed for at least a year! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• I am actually astonished at the idea that "no consensus" should result in no further discussion. That is literally the opposite of our entire WP:DR process. No consensus always means more discussion. Beyond that, given that even you found a consensus in the past discussion for a move, I am likewise a bit surprised at how the arguments in the discussion are not being evaluated. Especially given the super-majority in support of a move in raw votes. nableezy - 17:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not astonished by your response to my endorsement. Let's just say that while you are not incorrect about a no-consensus outcome requiring further discussion, experience has shown that editors should wait for a period (suggested is about three months or so), AND strengthen their args or discover new ones, before starting a fresh RM. This new RM was disruptive to the extremus! The longer the wait, the more likely a new RM will succeed. The RM's nom and several others in the RM appear to be ignoring these facts uncovered by experience. Therefore, editors must step back from this issue and go do something else for a year. I endorse this closure because I've taken the closer out of the equation and consider the close to be the exactly correct outcome, at least for now. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Im sorry, but it is nonsense that after. a no-consensus to overturn (which you voted to overturn for the record) move review of a no consensus move request that re-opening the request is disruptive in any way shape or form. Why is the close the correct outcome here? When 60% of the votes are in favor, and (just like in the last move review which you agreed the arguments in favor were much more in keeping with policy) the arguments in support are more grounded in policy? nableezy - 20:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be too close to this to see why I must endorse this closure, which is not in the past but in the present. Disruptive editing is sometimes a very subjective call. There is no policy nor guideline that sez we cannot open a fresh move request at any time. The instructions just suggest that waiting is usually more satisfying, rewarding and successful than jumping right back into a situation with no new args, no new guns, no strengthening of old args, same ol' same ol'. To me, the disruptive nature begins and ends with the waste of time. It's a waste when editors involve themselves in such discussions that probably don't have a snowball's chance in Hades to build consensus. If there's little or no chance of consensus building, then it's truly a waste of good time. And just so you know, I see this RM as not having built a consensus to move and would have closed it the same way had I IAR'd and closed it myself. So the closure itself was solid, righteous and sound. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Based on what? In the prior move review, what you wrote was the prior move closure was correct, and that the rebuttals to the opposes were sound. The arguments have not changed, but the numbers have skewed even further towards a super-majority in support. So what I dont get is how you can say the prior request, with much of the same arguments but less participation and less of a majority in favor had a consensus for a move, but this request, with even greater participation and a larger majority in favor somehow does not? It makes no logical sense, but whatever. This closer was clearly involved, and violated the closing procedures in closing the same request as they had previously closed, and beyond that their close itself is based on absolutely nothing. Just bald assertion of no consensus. Finally, a non-admin does not have the authority to institute a moratorium on discussions. And if that stands watch me break that supposed binding requirement in a few weeks. nableezy - 20:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I've recently watched as some old friends and excellent Wikipedia editors were blocked because they went "off the deep end" in their fervor to, as Sceptre put it, to right great wrongs. It helps no one if the moratorium is blessed by an admin and you transgress in a few weeks. Moratoriums are the purview of administration, but really they are the purview of all of us agreeing, that is, coming to consensus, that we should walk away and leave something alone for awhile. You get nowhere knocking your head up against a brick wall. You get somewhere if instead, you try to get along with other editors, especially those with whom you disagree. We're all here to build an encyclopedia, after all. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 21:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Nah, because as always no consensus means more discussion, not allow the status quo through filibuster contingent to prevail through inertia. I have no problem with engaging in discussion, but so far there hasnt been discussion in support of the close, either by Sceptre or by yourself. It is simply argument by assertion. But I promise you without an admin imposing as a discretionary sanction a moratorium none will apply here, and I will have no problem challenging anybody who tries to impose one at AE or at ArbCom if necessary. People cant just make up the rules as though their power is supreme here, or at least they cannot expect me or anybody else to pay them any mind whatsoever if they try. But, since I do sincerely respect your position and viewpoint, how do you read the prior move request as having consensus to move and this one, with even more support than that, as not having consensus? Because actually engaging in discussion is how we do reach consensus, not by merely asserting our position and then refusing to back it up. Which is what this, and the last close by Sceptre, have been. nableezy - 22:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The "no consensus means more discussion" argument you keep touting is flawed and has no basis in how discussions on the encyclopedia actually work. The community accepts that sometimes discussions need longer than a week to reach a consensus; that's why there's a process for relisting those discussions that are a little bit more contentious (and indeed, there's also a sort of "pocket relist" of just leaving a discussion in the backlog because you think a consensus is forming but not yet fully solidified). A "no consensus" close, on the other hand, is the closer saying "there isn't a consensus and further discussion at this time is unlikely to produce one".

In those circumstances, the status quo does prevail and the correct thing to do isn't to prolong the process artificially in the hopes of getting a different result; it's to take a step back and think carefully of what to do next. The previous move review ended with "no consensus", and it's very telling that a new RM was opened instead of a new MRV; "one more heave" might have got a different result, whereas another MRV would've definitely been speedily closed. That's what I meant by "gaming consensus". Sceptre (talk) 12:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The only game being played is a closer re-closing the same move twice and attempting to shut down further discussion. One might be forgiven for assuming an ulterior motive for repeated out of process closes, the last one being two days after a move was relisted and this one violating WP:RMCI. nableezy - 13:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

So you think it's procedurally not great, but still all well and good. Thanks for the clarity. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

This entire situation is nothing else but "procedurally not great". The "all well and good" would be to leave the article and title alone for awhile and go do something else. Step back and stay on track! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse (uninvolved). Close call, but acceptable. Both terms are acceptable since they are used in reliable sources. I am not convinced that exodus is a euphemism. Even if it was, that is not one of the WP:CRITERIA, so it can be used if it appears in reliable sources (like in The Troubles, which is not titled the Northern Ireland conflict). The current name is also more concise. Most editors did support the proposed name, but per WP:NOTVOTE, there is no rule about what percentage is enough to qualify for a consensus. Policy-wise, it was a draw, votes-wise, it was borderline. Another closer might have closed as "moved", but the actual closer didn't. Vpab15 (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  Ironically, you've already provided more analysis of the discussion right there than the closer ever did in their closing statement - this being rather the point: the closer demonstrated no evidence of effort made to weigh the RM. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  So... are you okay with people closing the same discussion multiple times? Like, if I really don't want for Kyiv to move to Kiev, it's okay for me to camp out on Talk:Kyiv and close the move request as "no consensus" every time? Red Slash 16:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

  I don't have an opinion on whether the closer was involved or not. WP:INVOLVED does seem to allow admin actions. But even if they were involved, overturning just because of that would open a huge loophole. I could get the outcome I want in any discussion by being involved and closing the opposite way I really want. By all means, express your opposition to the close if you think there was a consensus to move, but the automatic overturn for being involved makes no sense in my opinion. Vpab15 (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

  Who said it would overturn to moved? The loophole is the other way though if it is not overturned. Sceptre may camp out at this page and close all move requests so that their preferred title is maintained. And further impose a moratorium on further requests! nableezy - 13:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, you are right. Overturn could just mean reopen the RM. But as I said before, there is a very high chance that a new move review will be started when the RM is re-closed. There is enough participation in the RM to decide if there is a consensus to move or not. I think that should be the focus of this move review. Re-opening the RM would be a waste of time in my opinion. Vpab15 (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

  There is enough participation in the RM to decide if there is a consensus to move or not

  Erm, you have already endorsed nocon? Or am I misunderstanding you? Selfstudier (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. Just a gentle reminder in regard to all of the above overturn args: please don't lose sight of the purpose of this venue, which is solely to analyze closures and give an opinion about their validity. If editors think the closer should be sanctioned, this is not the correct venue for that. From the first paragraph of WP:MRV#What this process is not: "This review process should be focused on the move discussion and the subsequent results of the move discussion, not on the person who closed the discussion." That makes every overturn opinion above null and void unless editors delete the text about the closer and include their opinions on the closure itself. Thanks for rememberin'. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, an important point. Also, if the close is invalidated, the discussion would have to be re-opened, with a high chance we'll end up here again when it is re-closed. Of course, editors are free to argue the close is wrong and there is consensus to move, but so far no uninvolved editor has done so. Vpab15 (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  Not if a respected, experienced, UNINVOLVED closer does the close. The close is wrong because the closer was INVOLVED. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  User:Paine Ellsworth Is wrong about “solely”. The whole process is subject to review. If the process is being undermined by WP:INVOLVED closers, the whole process loses respect. If INVOLVED closing is ok, where is the line stopping other INVOLVED closers jumping in faster next time? The close was wrong because the closer was INVOLVED. It needs to be overturned for an independent closer to re-close. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. This is exactly what the process of move review is here for. The move closure was unquestionably unacceptable. @Paine Ellsworth: it befuddles me that you don't see this, because I've always had respect for you, and I think vice versa (I could be wrong, but I think you even use my template to put smiley faces!). Involved editors cannot be expected to impartially close discussions. This is a core rule of Wikipedia and it has been since before I got here eighteen years ago. There is no way that @Sceptre: (another editor that I had a lot of respect for), could possibly be deluded enough to think that nobody else on Wikipedia could have possibly closed this but her. Paine, if you cared deeply about some issue, would you be okay if an involved editor who already has closed one request took it upon himself to close the same request again? No way. This isn't just annoying, it goes against our core principles at Wikipedia. Involved editors cannot be expected to impartially close discussions, and so involved editors cannot be allowed to impartially close discussions. And indeed they're not allowed to do so, and Sceptre did it anyway, and you're defending her. Red Slash 02:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm not defending nor accusing her of anything. The only thing I defend is the closure, because I would have closed it the same this time. Oppose args seem a bit stronger this time. And I do think it's wrong to go against "What MRV is not" and argue the "involved closer" whine here. Editors should go whine somewhere else, because MRV is all about the close, not about the closer. There is a correct venue for that sort of thing, and maybe Sceptre should be taken there; however, MRV is decidedly not the correct venue to report an editor's behavior. Nor is it a place to make personal attacks of any kind against an editor – no matter what she's done. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 02:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

“Whine”?

Choice of closer is an integral part of the RM process. The appropriateness of an NAC can be argued here. The objective fact that a prior closer can’t close again is even more clear cut, it does not the fact that the closer in the linked discussion with the closer goes on to deny their being objective INVOLVED demands response, and my response is to admonish. Admonish is not a real, for a real sanction, a topic ban at WP:AN would be the way to go. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

But if you allow a close by involved parties just because you agree with the result, then at that point, anyone can close even if they're involved. And don't dodge the question by forum shopping; this is literally move review, where we review moves. This is the venue for it. There is nowhere else to go. (I note that you vaguely allude to "there is a correct venue for that sort of thing", which you of course are only able to vaguely allude to, because there is one and only one venue for that sort of thing, and it is here.) Red Slash 06:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Can't remember a time when I have not gone with the RMCI instructions "rule" and not closed another RM when I've already closed one on the same talk page. That's the rule, but that rule does not seem to be in accord with policy. Having said that, neither Sceptre nor I are admins, so it is best for us to stick to the rules. Then again, there is the exception to the "rule" described in WP:IAR, and I believe that covers this particular closure. That does not open any doors for future involved closures, the merits of which can be determined on an individual basis. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 22:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

This is not even simply a discussion on the same page, it is a repeated discussion on the same page, and Sceptre has simply repeated their original, questionable close - a close clearly demonstrated as questionable through its lack of endorsement. They have then steamrolled over the subsequent closing process with no further consideration of the evidence, but principally referencing their own personal indignation that the discussion was re-engendered after their preceding no consensus, questionable close. They are entitled to their opinion that opening a new discussion was disruptive, but the subjective opinion that something is disruptive is not a reason for circumventing the normal closing process and certainly not for ignoring all rules, Christ alive. It says, ignore rules if you are improving Wikipedia, which is hardly self-evident here. I always thought that the RM platform was an admirably rule-based and professional environment, but this discussion has been an invaluable reminder that people are just people, and sometimes they are willing to die on the strangest of hills - here ignoring everything that the process they engage with stands for. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:48, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

You, friend Iskandar323, supported in the RM, so it's not a surprise that you don't consider this RM closure to be an improvement to the encyclopedia. IAR is a policy, a very short community consensus that leads us: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." RMCI is a good rulebook. It's not a policy nor a guideline, in other words, RMCI has not been vetted by the community. So its rules are more easily broken than our p's and g's. Another wise behavioral guideline is WP:AGF, and IAR seems to be used against AGF quite extensively in this move review. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 07:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

You, friend Iskandar323, supported in the RM, so it's not a surprise that you don't consider this RM closure to be an improvement to the encyclopedia

In other words, you think he has a conflict of interest, right? Or is "involved" as it seems to be referred to here. Of course that is true, that is why people should preface !votes here with involved/not involved. One could of course, assume good faith regardless but it seems you are somewhat selective when it comes to application of these standards.

In any case, when seasoned editors have a conflict of interest, I think they know they have, a rule book explaining it shouldn't be necessary. Selfstudier (talk) 09:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the closer bent a rule, which under normal circumstances I would not tolerate. However under the disruptive circumstances of this RM, which hides behind the "no consensus means more discussion" and is in reality just editors not getting what they want so they hammer away and kick the dead horse hoping editors will sigh and give in. I'm saying that I would have closed it the same way, possibly even not moved. And I agree with the idea of a moratorium to quiet things down so editors have time to think. We all want the highest and best title for this article. And this RM was obviously not the way to build consensus toward that end. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 02:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

This isn't "bending" a rule, this is breaking a rule outright and then explicitly saying "the rules don't apply to me". Red Slash 08:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree that the circumstances are in truth, disruptive. It is 'only' a move discussion and it is not as if I or any one of the supposed "some editors" spend their life in move reviews contesting closes, just this one. The principle of replacing exodus with something more accurate and descriptive was established in the associated recent RM that moved 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle to 1948 Palestinian expulsion from Lydda and Ramle that I mentioned in the nom although no-one seems to have paid that much attention. That happened because the sources are strong. To my mind, this is the only real question here. NPOV requires that a title reflect the balance of sourcing after all and whatever happens here specifically, it will have to be addressed eventually. Selfstudier (talk) 09:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The "disruptive" circumstances are derived from not waiting at least two or three months, and in the meanwhile strengthening args and maybe discovering new args, but instead diving right back in with the same ol' same ol' args while seeming to expect a different outcome. Add to that the again straddling editors with MRV as icing on the cake. Your statement above, To my mind the principle of replacing exodus with something more accurate and descriptive was established in the associated recent RM that moved 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle to 1948 Palestinian expulsion from Lydda and Ramle that I mentioned in the nom although no-one seems to have paid that much attention. That happened because the sources are strong, is something new, and I'm very sorry it was overlooked. But it was there to read and enough other editors were still opposed to result in at least "no consensus" and possibly even "not moved". For me, the bottom line is that a seasoned closer found enough opposition to the supporting args to close with "no consensus", and here we are once again rattling cages while spinning wheels like hamsters. I think I'm done with it, I hope I'm done with this. Once again, really sorry your new argument was perhaps not thoroughly regarded by other editors. And I hope this whole process doesn't jade you as it seems to have jaded me a bit. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 09:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so an editor closing two RMs in a row as actually warned against in the explanatory essay at WP:RMCI is not disruptive, but you're reading the part of WP:RMCI in brackets and clearly advisory as imperative. "While it is usually bad form to re-request a move if consensus is found against it (until and unless circumstances change), it is not considered bad form to re-raise a request that found "no consensus" to move. (Successful move re-requests generally, though not always, take place at least three months after the previous one. An exception is when the no-consensus move discussion suggests a clear, new course of action.)" So the part you are taking as read is the part that says "though not always", while you are quite happy to ignore items from the same essay with no such ambiguity. That's, at best, a selective reading of the essay and a very conflicted stance. Unless I'm mistaken and there is somewhere else that this two-to-three month rule of thumb is written. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

An editor closing two RMs in a row is disruptive. An editor closing multiple discussions on the same topic is disruptive. They are disrupting the proposer process requiring closers to be UNINVOLVED, and they are damaging the standing of the RM process.

In an editor has closed something before, they will have a bias towards reinforcing their prior closing.

If something desperately needs closing, !vote to that effect, and post a note at WP:ANRFC.

Uninvolved admins are a limited resource, but it’s very far from invoking the doctrine of necessity. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse (uninvolved) Closing a discussion does not make an editor involved in the discussion - they are only involved in relation to the close, and should not, for example, close a challenge to the close. The arguments from Sceptre and P.I. Ellsworth are also persuasive. BilledMammal (talk) 07:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

  And your explanation for which an exception should be made to ignore the closing instructions at WP:RMCI as to what does or not qualify as involved and to make up your own definition? Are we just tearing up the rulebook? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

  RMCI is an essay, and in regards to this I consider the instructions there be incorrect and impractical. If you want it to be treated as a rulebook rather than as suggestions it needs to become a guideline. BilledMammal (talk) 08:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

  As I've said, the idea that closers are considered INVOLVED from RMCI actually conflicts with the policy WP:INVOLVED, which says that actions taken in an administrative role do not make the person taking the action involved. Discussion closures at any venue are administrative actions. WP:AFD/AI, for example, doesn't forbid someone who closes an AFD from closing any future AFDs. RMCI is full of good advice – the best essays often are – but the best essay in the world is still is an essay, and as such cannot override policy. If you want to change what "involved" means, then the correct place to make that argument is at WT:ADMIN, not in an essay. Sceptre (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

  Speaking of policy, you, not an admin, have zero authority to impose a moratorium on discussion anywhere. Your close here, attempting to enshrine your previous close as holy writ for one year, is without basis in policy. And it will not stand. nableezy - 23:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

"Speaking of policy"? Please point to the policy that says non-admins "have zero authority to impose a moratorium" on a discussion. I've imposed a few myself, and nobody questioned them. Any editor can impose a moratorium, because a moratorium is just a consensus among editors to leave things alone for awhile. It's just recognition that editing is more effective if editors maintain their composure and keep things cool. It's acceptance that spinning wheels like a hamster in a cage accomplishes nothing and gets us nowhere. What if a non-admin closer closes this review with "endorsement of close and moratorium". What then, friend Nableezy? Will you honor the endorsement? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 07:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Nope. And no, no editor on this project can impose anything, except an admin as a discretionary sanction in a CT topic. No editor has the right to shut down discussion on their own accord. Neither does this board. I promise you, if this garbage close stands, in which a single editor re-closes the same discussion with a ruling that their previous judgment cannot be questioned for a year I will open an RFC on the title and take it to AE or ArbCom if I have to. No, I will not honor said endorsement. There is very obviously no consensus among editors to leave this alone, so the idea that such a thing can be imposed by a defrocked admin who violated the move closing instructions through making an involved close is a non-starter. Sceptre cant impose a thing on Wikipedia, sorry. As far as the policy, see Wikipedia:Contentious topics in which the only group entitled to impose any sanction in a restricted topic is an uninvolved admin. Absent a consensus for something, you cannot shut down discussion on changing it. Zero chance of my agreeing to abide by that, and if it takes an ArbCom case to settle that Sceptre may not re-close her own move and further unilaterally impose a moratorium on further discussion of that involved closure then so be it. nableezy - 13:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, good luck with all that, my friend. Your "no consensus requires more discussion" only flies when old args are stronger and new args are presented. This RM was just a rehashing of old args and not enough editors agree that the proposed title would be better than the current title. One reason for the suggested three-month wait following a no-consensus outcome is that it gives editors time to get serious about title change and to strengthen their args plus find new strong args. That's not what happened here, and it won't happen no matter how many RMs and MRVs we waste our time with until editors stop kicking the dead horse and breathe new life into such a proposal. That's how you build consensus, not by continuing to be combative and unreasonable. We're done here, because all the new words, all the reasonable words, have been exhausted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 03:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Cool, but our entire DR system is predicated on no consensus means continue discussion, not shut it down with spurious claims of disruption. Weren’t you the one that said there’s another form for those claims? Regardless, as Sceptre has no authority to impose literally anything on me or anybody else I’ll proceed with continuing to work towards correcting NPOV violations in our articles. nableezy - 03:35, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Cool? I wish! Love is blind, and to love WP at times ain't far behind. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 03:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Aren't moratoriums also subject to a reasonable numbers editors in the discussion calling for one (and making a case for it), not an involved editor just deciding that they feel like applying one? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• So... are you okay with people closing the same discussion multiple times? Like, if I really don't want for Kyiv to move to Kiev, it's okay for me to camp out on Talk:Kyiv and close the move request as "no consensus" every time? Red Slash 16:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

You and I both know that it would be wrong to have a subjective opinion about an RM and go ahead and close the discussion anyway. A subjective opinion belongs in the RM survey; a closer must always be objective, and if it can be shown that they have not been objective, then the closer's decision should be subject to being overturned. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 22:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's impossible to read people's minds, so please tell me: what is the best feasible safeguard against that? That is, what is the red-line test that we have always used on Wikipedia to prevent people from closing debates that they have a subjective opinion on? I'll give you a hint: it looks a whole lot like the first section of WP:RMCI. Red Slash 22:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Over the years I've found that to assume good faith (a community vetted guideline) has served as an excellent safeguard. At times that's not easy to do, but I suggest that everybody try it. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 07:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed that there are no policy instructions on closing, disagree that in default of those, the best thing is to ignore what is available. Selfstudier (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn (uninvolved). the close as not consistent with the spirit and intent of common practices and guidelines because the closer was involved due to having previously closed such a move request, which is listed in WP:RMCI as an example of an involved close (if it isn't obvious). There is an interesting argument that despite being involved, it was fine for this editor to close again because the nomination was disruptive. So this was like protecting the decision-making process from serious disruption, which takes the cake. Okay, maybe relevant in theory. But the entire course of the discussion, which for all intents and purposes was a normal-seeming substantive move discussion, validates the nature of this RM as non-disruptive one, even if in the beginning it could have been feared as disruptive, in context of the broader naming dispute. The substantive nature of the discussion retroactively shields it from being evaluated as a disruptive affair at any moment. It could have been disruptive, but, concretely, it wasn't. So, the argument that an involved editor is justified in closing this "disruptive" discussion can't stand – it wasn't disruptive. —Alalch E. 01:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn (uninvolved). There are just too many questionable choices for this to be the right outcome. Yes, RMCI is just an explanatory essay, but why should this be an exception? Doesn't being put through the move review wringer make the closer appear more involved? Yes, we frequently lean on non-admin closures even in contentious areas, but didn't this one deserve an admin closure, coming as it does after some serious procedural mess in one of the project's most controversial topics? Was a moratorium justifiable given the lack of mention by any participants?
  I've marked myself as uninvolved here, though I would like to note that someone attempted to stealth canvass me to the discussion, and that I left a comment noting that fact. I did not weigh in on the substance of the RM. Many participants have missed the instruction here to "remember to disclose whether or not you were involved in the relevant page move discussion", and I encourage whoever closes this to investigate on their own. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I meant also to rebut one argument from above: that move review should discount arguments based on the involvedness of the closer. Objections based on RMCI and common closing practice are very much in scope here, being "focused on the move discussion and the subsequent results of the move discussion, not on the person who closed the discussion". If I had ongoing concerns about Sceptre's willingness to close while involved, I'd raise them elsewhere, but I am not concerned about their conduct, just the quality of this close. If other editors truly feel that the instructions here invalidate arguments based on the closer's involvement, I would strongly favor adjustment of the instructions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

    It's been suggested a few times that RMCI contradicts or clashes with INVOLVED. This should be disregarded. It's sensible and commonplace for guidelines/info pages/explanatory essays to contain rules more stringent than the relevant policy. It's fair to argue that the RMCI rule is a bad one or that an exception should be made, but grounding the objection in argument based on incompatibility is spurious.

    Despite the wording of INVOLVED, we do routinely suggest that administrators not be the ones to decline unblock requests if they're previously done so for a specific user block (see Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblock requests), this despite them technically having only been involved in an administrative capacity. Though not generally true of RM closures on a given page, this particular move request was a redo of one that Sceptre had just closed, akin to a second unblock request from the same user in regard to the same block. We should counsel our experienced closers to stand back in such situations. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

    @Firefangledfeathers: I'm still not clear as to whether RM closures even are "an administrative capacity" any more than the non-admin closure of any other discussion. Is the concept of "administrative capacity", as referred to on a policy about admins for admins, really meant to be broadly construed to refer to activities by editors that are somewhat administrative or administrator-like? There seem to be some huge leaps being taken from a fairly discrete policy into policy grey areas. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

    Iskandar323, it's not coming out of nowhere. Closing was historically an admin activity, and WP:NAC still invokes the standard of INVOLVED, at WP:NACINV. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

    I second Alalch E's analysis below about use of the word "involved" not needing to be interpreted as referencing INVOLVED. That said, even if someone really feels like INVOLVED is implicated, I still feel it's near nonsensical to see a contradiction. By way of analogy, it would be like saying WP:MEDRS contradicts WP:V which says "Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications." It's not a contradiction, it's just a more specific rule that applies in a specific situation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn (involved) I hadn't intended to !vote but since the closer has !voted and given the subsequent discussion here it seems reasonable that I should do the same. In all the discussions here, I have not seen anything substantive that would merit the closer making a second close that is little more than a repeat of their first close even though the raw numbers are indicative of a consensus having been reached. That there is seemingly no engagement with the content of the !votes is also concerning. In light of this, I believe an independent administrative close is what is needed to put this to bed. Selfstudier (talk) 06:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn I find it rather outrageous that -one- editor, who isn't even an admin, can make a controversial close -twice-.Huldra (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn (uninvolved). Selfstudier's comment above I think puts it most succinctly: there doesn't seem to be a sound or sufficient reason for an involved non-admin to make multiple closes on the same topic, and doing so has been disruptive. I support the suggestion that an independent administrative close is needed. ╠╣uw [talk] 15:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn (uninvolved) on procedural grounds. If one's close is overturned by the community, that closer should not then return to the same discussion to make the same close. The reason that WP:INVOLVED closes are bad are that the closing editor may be, or appear to be, incapable of making objective decisions in disputes in which they are involved. A similar logic applies here: if the community overturns one's close in that discussion, then one may be, or appear to be, incapable of making objective decisions relating to the closure of that discussion. I find it extremely odd that we would need to spell this out explicitly in policy for one to adhere to this principle; this is a WP:COMMONSENSE principle to adhere to. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  Hi Hawky. Sceptre's close wasn't overturned. They re-closed after S Marshall's close was vacated via MR, and the MR for their re-closure came to no consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  I misread the diffs; I am neutral in this specific case. I stand by what I said above for the other case, however. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  S Marshall's close was not vacated via MR. Their close was the result of the MR ie to vacate the close of UtherSRG (on technical grounds). Then Sceptre closed the reopened RM and the close was taken to review and no consensus found for it so reopened (another RM) and reclosed again by Sceptre and that close is now being challenged here. Selfstudier (talk) 08:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse (Uninvolved; I might have closed some of previous MRs, don't remember). First off, the RMCI clause You are considered involved if: You have ever closed such a move request is bullshit that contradicts WP:INVOLVED and has never been affirmed by the community (and I learned about its existence just today), so the procedural arguments based on it are rather weak. On to the substance of the close, I agree that the discussion and the provided arguments did not offer anything new compared to the previous one, and read out more like an attrition warfare than as an attempt to improve the encyclopedia. Now, to reduce the overall drama, I agree that the best idea at this point could be to have the discussion reclosed by someone else, so as to put the whole debacle to bed. In any case, a 6-months moratorium should be imposed, lest we end up with an additional round of the same. No such user (talk) 09:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  Apples and oranges. 'Involved' is a word. WP:INVOLVED is a specific part of the WP:MOP policy. When RMCI talks about the involved status it does not attempt to expand on or build upon WP:INVOLVED which is about administrators' conduct. The way this word is used in the essay, with its own independent substance (it would've remained perfectly intelligible if WP:MOP had never existed), has an independent meaning, restricted to the narrow scope and purpose of that essay. For this reason, WP:RMCI can't contradict WP:INVOLVED. There's even a note in the essay explaining this: Note that these criteria are significantly stricter than the criteria listed at WP:INVOLVED; this is intentional, befitting the less urgent nature of requested moves. The criteria simply talk about something other than general cosiderations of administrators' conduct, it doesn't even talk about administrators, as it is not required for an RM to be closed by an administrator. —Alalch E. 17:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  ding ding ding, we have a winner. nableezy - 17:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse. No one else was willing to touch the discussion, closing a previous discussion does not make one invovled. Was a good reading of consensus. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 07:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  You forgot to write (involved) so that's fixed. Selfstudier (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn (uninvolved). The closer of a previous RM discussion should not be doing repeat closings. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

2nd issue in the close

Since 1) this closure review has gone beyond the obligatory seven days, 2) consensus has not been reached above, and no consensus at MRV usually means the close is endorsed, 3) the 2nd issue, a WP:MORATORIUM, will prevent future move requests that have no strengthened arguments nor no new arguments, and 4) editor Iskandar323 is correct in that the 2nd issue usually requires consensus unless imposed by Jimbo or somebody, that 2nd issue should now be scrutinized to see if consensus for it can be achieved.

In the words of the closer, "No consensus, with an additional moratorium on move requests for twelve months," this suggestion should be vetted by any editors who want to take part:

• Support the moratorium; however, perhaps six months would be more appropriate. And this qualified by the necessity for any new move request after the moratorium to have much stronger arguments in the nomination. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 00:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: Umm, who says the discussion above hasn't reached consensus? As a now thoroughly involved participant, that is surely not your call to make? Minus the closer's self-endorsement, which somewhat goes without saying, there are six overturn votes versus three endorsements, and I think everyone is aware at this stage which side of the debate Wikipedia's actual guidelines come down on. It is clear that we ideally need an admin closure at this stage. I also don't think a move review is the place to begin voting on imposing moratoriums that were never even really supported by the move request in the first place, but imposed, as if by way of writ, during the closing process. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• In what world is there not consensus to overturn above? Three users besides the closer, who so blatantly misunderstands INVOLVED that they think they have a vote on if their own judgment is flawed, endorse, whereas now 7 have voted to overturn. Also, neither the closer nor this board have any standing to impose a moratorium in a CT-designated topic anyway, and if you think it does well we can take that to ArbCom if we have to. Though I will note the hilarity in claiming this essay must be honored but this one ignored. nableezy - 15:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• consensus has not been reached above IMHO is missing from this presumption. I am involved but haven't !voted. Three editors using this review to throw RMCI in the bin, huh. It says right at the top when one edits, "Disagreements with Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions (WP:RMCI), Wikipedia:Article titles, the Manual of Style, other Wikipedia naming conventions, or the Wikipedia norm of consensus should be raised at the appropriate corresponding talk page." and yet one editor says that "RMCI is an essay, and in regards to this I consider the instructions there be incorrect and impractical." Right. The set of circumstances around this particular close are a bit unusual but there is no real disruption as such so why would a moratorium be necessary? Selfstudier (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I think a moratorium is necessary because some editors ignore the need to wait until they have strengthened their arguments or found new ones in order to open a new move request. Sometimes editors need a "cooling off time" to gather their thoughts. Yet sometimes, unless the moratorium tool is used, editors will continue to spin their wheels needlessly and waste editors' time with same ol' same ol' rationales in the beginning of a new, out-of-process move request. Sorry if I've already said this, but it seems that it needs to be repeated. That's probably because editors who are too close to the issue blindly disregard some facts. So here we go again. I didn't open this section to rehash the RM nor to bludgeon the MRV. I only opened it to try to garner consensus one way or the other. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

    No-consensus closes are very different than repeated closes where a consensus has been found, as noted in the instructional page WP:RMCI (under WP:THREEOUTCOMES). Sceptre is free to impose a moratorium just like editors are free to ignore it. Ultimately, if people want a page moved, they'll move it. Unilaterally imposed moratoria have no binding power. Red Slash 21:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• I disagree with the premises of the OP, for the reasons others have mentioned just above. If we're going to have a discussion about a moratorium, wouldn't the article talk page be the best location for it? Talk page watchers who have seen the MR notice would not necessarily expect that we're here talking about a moratorium. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  • The closer raised the idea of a moratorium and made it a part of their closure. We are here to review all aspects of the closure, to include the idea of whether or not a moratorium is needed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

    The close would need to be endorsed first. Selfstudier (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, of course, my assessment above as to the lack of consensus in this MRV is only an opinion. As such, after this point in time consensus to overturn could still be built, and the closer of this MRV may very well agree or disagree with me. Failing that, I think it might help the closer to see if we can build consensus in regard to this 2nd issue of the closure. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• I also disagree with the premises of the OP, and I also disagree with the premise built into a statement such as after this point in time consensus to overturn could still be built. If this MR results in overturning, the reclosing editor should decide, if they have such a capacity, about any moratorium independently. —Alalch E. 20:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• Moratoriums are extreme actions, because they purport to prevent discussion on the same issue again. I strongly disagree that a closer can unilaterally impose it. I see two cases which can result in moratoriums: a consensus of editors (in the discussion, or at AN/ANI, or some other venue) agreeing to not discuss the issue again for a while, or an admin acting under some delegated authority by the community or ArbCom imposing such a restriction (i.e. a WP:AC/DS restriction, which is properly logged). I don't believe unilateral-moratorium-by-closer is valid. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion about the close

I've fissioned this off from the substantive discussion, above, because what follows doesn't touch on the real issue at this MR. I expect the closer will read it, because I sure would, but there's no need for them to reflect on it or summarize it in their closing statement.—S Marshall T/C 15:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• Question. Are you editors content for me to close this MR? I have never edited in the Israel-Palestine topic area, but I've closed two previous MRs -- here and here -- and, in the course of the past ten years, five RfCs -- 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. There's discussion above that suggests that as a previous closer, some editors would think me too involved to do the job, but I can't discern a consensus about that. The alternative is to wait for someone who has the necessary experience in contentious topic areas to deal with this, but simultaneously has never closed an Israel-Palestine discussion. You might be waiting a while, but such an editor could exist.—S Marshall T/C 18:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  I hope we can get someone as experienced as you SM, but I do think a closure from someone who hasn't been involved in this whole process would be much better. I doubt we'll have to wait too long (maybe a month or less?) before someone from WP:CR comes along. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  From a purely procedural perspective, the extra strict WP:RMCI involved clauses do not obviously apply to move reviews do they? Move reviews assess whether WP:RMCI has been followed, so presumably aren't subject to it, right? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  Im fine with it. nableezy - 18:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  correct Red Slash 21:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  I mean, you've been around long enough that I think I can trust you. Go for it IMO Red Slash 19:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  User:S Marshall, I think involved closing is a serious issue to avoid. Are you involved? Do you have a bias? Do you have an unconscious bias?

  Firstly, as a rule, I would have it that before closing while possibly perceivably involved, the discussion should be old, and it should have been listed at Wikipedia:Closure requests for over one week. I think the condition is met.

  Then if you think the discussion should be closed, and no one else is doing it, and you are not seriously involved, but it’s possibly perceivable, I suggest that you include a paragraph detailing your assessment of your bias on the topic, to prove that you’ve considered what biases you may have.

  — SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  Well, no, I don't think I'm involved within Wikipedia's rather idiosyncratic definition of that word. All I've done is closed discussions that were listed at WP:CR, so the second paragraph of WP:INVOLVED does rather clearly apply here. But that's not the point. The only successful close of this extremely drawn-out matter would be one that actually brought closure. That could only be achieved by a closer who enjoys the full confidence of the disputants—and Firefangledfeathers would rather someone else did it, so I don't meet that criterion. I rule myself out as closer.—S Marshall T/C 23:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  Demonstrating the issue with RMCI’s bizarre and contrary to policy definition of involved, with an editor as uninvolved as SM unable to close this discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  @BilledMammal: SM didn't reference WP:RMCI at all as the reason for recusing himself. Why are you conflating this? Iskandar323 (talk) 05:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  Although it still has time to run, judging by Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Make_Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions a guideline as well as several comments made above, it does seem that there is a general feeling that conflicts of interest are best avoided. I thank SM for his careful approach to this matter. Selfstudier (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  I absolutely do not have any kind of conflict of interest! There is a lot of blue water between "perceived to be involved by a minority of the disputants" and "conflict of interest".—S Marshall T/C 23:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  I absolutely did not mean to infer that you did, I thought that it was was a good thing that you asked first and another good thing that you recused yourself even though objections were not particularly against it. Speaking only for myself, I remain of the view that the original sin is the issue here and hopefully, the supposed conflict with INVOLVED will get ironed out satisfactorily in due course. Selfstudier (talk) 08:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  At the end of the day, all of the 'involved' procedures we have in place are an effort to ensure a basic minimum level of impartiality; they are no guarantee - an editor can be involved and yet still impartial, or less involved and less impartial. And yes, SM's exceptionally cautious approach to this matter demonstrates exactly the concern for the principles at the heart of all this. A fundamental striving for impartiality should be a goal for all these processes. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Even though I might likely disagree with your closure as I have frequently done in the past, you, editor S Marshall, are one of the best and most eloquent we have. I don't know why you have become so careful in your approach to closing, and I'm sure there's good reason for it; however, even in, and especially in, review discussions like this one, your closes of contentious issues have been and remain... beyond reproach! (imho blanc comme neige!>) P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 10:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Ditto. If both of us, who are disagreeing on this issue overall, agree, in my opinion you can feel free to close, @S Marshall. Red Slash 18:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

+1 —Alalch E. 12:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Would like to add (even if inappropriate) that you, and any other editor who would close this MRV, should please keep in mind that this is plainly and simply the review of a closure of an out-of-process move request. The closer of the previous move request, Sceptre, was laid back about it and let it happen, and the result was to be expected – a same ol', same ol', no-new-or-strengthened-arguments move request once again resulted in no consensus. I have done what Sceptre did many, many times, that is, I have closed out-of-process move requests on the same talk page myself, and in fact I just closed another one, a snow close of an out-of-process request that had been opened just following a previous move request I'd closed as moved. So as crazy as it may sound after reading all of the above, as far as I'm concerned – and to quote an eloquent administrator – I still think the outcome is utterly bloody obvious. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

There was nothing out of process about the move request, and your claim that there is some required wait period is supported by literally no policy. I agree the outcome is bloody obvious, and so do the overwhelming majority of people who commented above. And the actual move request likewise has an obvious consensus for the move, and not you or any other person has ever engaged in the strength of the arguments and their backing in the sourcing. Kindly stop bludgeoning this discussion though, we already know what you think. Its just that way more people disagree with you than agree with you, and their position is actually backed in our policies, guidelines and common practices. nableezy - 21:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my points, friend nableezy! You can bluster all you like, you can mislead the above overturners all you want, it does not change the facts as I've presented them. You opened A new move request was opened too soon (disruptive), you had no new arguments nor strengthened old arguments (disruptive), and your the request's outcome should have been no surprise to you nor to anybody else. Yet here we are wasting time and spinning wheels like a bleedin' hamster. Are you a bettin' man? If this MRV does get overturned and you get yet another crack at it, how do you think you'll do? After all this wasted time, you still have not managed to convince editors strongly enough in any of the RMs so far to move the article's title. Curious as to what exactly is it that drives you to push, push, push this in editors' faces to such an extent? Best to you, nableezy, because this issue is and has been closed, shut, for quite some time now. No matter how hard you kick it, a dead horse ain't gonna do much more than a few muscle tics. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 21:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I didnt open the move request, there is no such thing as a too soon continuation of a discussion that had no consensus for a no consensus close, and the numbers were even more skewed to a super-majority in this discussion than the last. As far as have not managed to convince editors, Ill note that nine editors agree that this closure was improper, and discounting the person who made the improper close, five agree with the close but even one of them supports a re-close. So, despite your claims of disruption, the only disruption that occured here was an involved closer making an improper close that misread the consensus of both the last two discussions, and further claimed powers she does not have to preclude further discussion. Im not pushing anything in any editors face, I await a closure of this move review to see what happens next. I am not the one making what they themselves admit is inappropriate comments to influence a closer to close in my own minority position's favor. That would be you, friend. nableezy - 03:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Knew that "inappropriate" confession would come back to bite me , and apologies for the nom mixup at the RM, struck that. Guess nobody's perfect, least of all me. You're still kidding yourself regardless. Sceptre did nothing wrong except in the eyes of someone who recently changed RMCI to make something I've been doing for years and other editors have been doing for years against the rules. We'll have to wait and see about that one. There is no way anyone can tell if Sceptre is "involved" except Sceptre. And regardless of what the RMCI say, closing more than one RM on a talk page does not automatically make an editor involved, so all the talk herein about that, which overshadows the fact that the RM was ill-conceived and out-of-process, is a scarlet herring. There is most certainly such a thing as a too soon reopening of an RM when the args are wanting. We wouldn't be here at MRV (again) if there weren't. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 07:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you've got to the heart of the issue here, Paine Ellsworth, much more eloquently than I have! There have been many times where I've closed an RM as a "no consensus, but further discussion might be warranted" and I've explicitly said that the closure doesn't preclude an immediate RM.

This, on the other hand, was not one of those RMs. By the time MRV2 closed, we were moving into the territory of one RM effectively taking half a year to complete. Any reasonable person would see there was no consensus to move the article, and further discussion wouldn't be helpful. In that way, the "no consensus means further discussion" argument is severely lacking. I've said multiple times that if there was a consensus to move, I would have happily done so, but not only was there no consensus, consensus was not forthcoming. Off-wiki, I'm very supportive of the Palestinian cause, but on-wiki, one has to put these views to one side if one can.

I'm willing to take a WP:TROUT to the face for a "correct result but procedurally wonky" close, but I still stand by the close. I think PE makes a good point that if I had closed the new RM on day one, there would probably be less pushback to this close. After all, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and I don't think anyone would begrudge me for closing an obviously disruptive RM. As it was – it was two months ago, I forget the details – I was probably recovering in bed from various holiday-period festivities at the time the new RM started, so by the time I woke up, it was already underway. Whether this was the result of off-wiki collusion or people probably being too invested in Wikipedia for their own good, I cannot say.

I also would caution the closer of the MRV to recognise that the idiosyncratic definition of INVOLVED in RMCI doesn't enjoy community approval at the moment and the RfC to elevate RMCI to guideline has derailed because of it. Whether I'm INVOLVED to the standard of WP:ADMIN is up to the closer to determine, but I strongly believe that my participation in this RM process has been purely administrative, and neither standing by one's administrative actions or consternation at what one perceives as disruptive editing is enough to make one INVOLVED. Sceptre (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

It was not correct in procedure or in substance, and just like the last move request, in which Paine agreed your close was incorrect, you neglect to actually demonstrate that you even read the comments, you just make "it is obvious there is no consensus" your mantra. The only disruption was an involved editor making a close and then further attempting to claim powers to deny anybody the ability to challenge that close for a year. And no, if you had closed it day one I would have taken it to AE, which thankfully is an option going forward as you are now aware of the discretionary sanctions in the ARBPIA topic area. I dont intend to engage further with editors who are so clearly ignoring the consensus of both this discussion and that one though, so Ill let you two lobby for the closer to ignore the consensus here without me. Toodles, nableezy - 15:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Without me and all, out of process my rear end, never mind the glaringly obvious conflict of interest in turn leading to an extremely poor close. Selfstudier (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Gun laws in Washington (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

This discussion is a textbook example of why simply counting heads is not a substitute for weighing arguments. By the numbers, this is on the border between consensus and no-consensus to begin with: 6 to 4, or 6 to 3 discounting a !vote that did not make any policy/guideline-based argument. But, as I explained on Mast303's talk, no oppose !votes addressed the operative question in this RM, which is whether "in Washington" unambiguously refers to Washington (state). Two (Reywas92 & Rreagan007) conclusorily said that it does, without explaining why. One (Mudwater) states that the status quo is preferable without advancing any reason. The only argument for PTOPIC status made is by Station1, who in response to Graham11 argues that pageviews make this the PTOPIC. That argument did not seem to sway anyone; meanwhile no one opposing addressed the point made by 4 supporters that a move would be consistent with essentially every other "in Washington (state)" article. No one explained why this one article should be an exception.

Closers are expected to disregard or down-weight arguments that are based merely on personal preference, are inconsistent with policies and guidelines, or fail to address strong arguments made by the other side. I submit that a closer doing so here would have closed as move. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Noting the closer has a history of misunderstanding (and outright not following, to the point of ANI-filed disruption) page-move process and standards. Prior to this NAC, I had given them a final warning about site disruption in the page-move space. Given they did not even explain their original close and pursuant to my warning, I have blocked them. Other participants here are welcome to copy any content they post on their talkpage into this discussion as relevant. DMacks (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what the precedent is (and I'm not excited to invoke WP:IAR and WP:BOLD), but I'm strongly inclined to just reverse their close. I agree with Tamzin that on the merits of the arguments, a Move result is the outcome. On that basis, I support overturning and moving as originally proposed. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Link to DMacks informing closer not to perform any further NACs. Link to the closer removing said notice after performing a NAC at Gun laws in Washington. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn (involved) yes the arguments about ambiguity/consistency seem stronger than the arguments that the other article has a different title which seemed to be the main reason for opposing. Also the !vote count is 6 in favor of moving compared with only 4 for keeping as is which seems a bit out of being "almost equal". This in addition to the strength of arguments seems enough to at least marginally close as "move". As noted there is already a consensus that Washington as a place name is ambiguous so except for descriptive titles that are unambiguous all should be qualified in the same way as the main title and there shouldn't be a need to have a RM or MR for every title. Those wanting all titles to use just "X in Washington" should look at moving Washington (state) to Washington which will probably not happen per WP:SNOW. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn to move (uninvolved). I would also be fine with someone IARing and reverting the closure, and I'm not opposed to a decision made here to vacate rather than overturn. I'd have closed as move, essentially per Tamzin. The arguments to move based on consistency with the main articles and our disambiguation guideline are compelling. Arguments against were low on PAG-based rationale. The idea, raised by a few opposers, that no disambiguator is needed despite the lack of a primary topic, and that a hatnote is sufficient, is directly contravened by the dab guideline. I don't mind an argument for an exception to a guideline, but I like to see it indicated so explicitly, and framed in a way that doesn't just invalidate the guideline. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)