Cyclone Matmo–Bulbul (talk||history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (No discussion on closer's talk page)

It’s quite laughable how the closer didn’t take into account the blatant WP:JDLI that was present in every single oppose vote in the discussion ( except for the one oppose vote that argued against WP:CCC). As such it should be overturned or relisted for policy based input. 67.148.24.106 (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I see no !votes in support of the move. Perhaps the closer could have said this as well in their closing statement, but seeing only opposition and an RM history that points to maintaining the status quo, I can see no reason to overturn. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That doesn’t exactly mean anything if all the votes were versions of WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT or they are WP:SQS. There needs to be POLICY opposition for it to be valid. I’m not sure about the other RMs but there was no policy based oppose in the 26 October 2022 RM. also, there was a neutral vote, so it wasn’t “only opposition”. 12.68.17.162 (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Properly closed. IPs should not be entertained in projectspace. 67.148.24.106, tell us who you are. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The oppose !votes aren't too strong, but given there was no support after a relist, and there was past consensus, I think this close is reasonable. ^Clyde!_Franklin! 04:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to mention the lack of discussion on the closer's talk page before this MR. ^Clyde!_Franklin! 04:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gqeberha (talk||history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

The page was move protected (as a result of a WP:MORATORIUM), but the move protection was overridden and the page moved after a week's discussion by a non-admin closer. Previous opposers were not informed (I was not closely monitoring the talk page because of the moratorium). This seems to be a procedural failure. Propose moving the page back to Port Elizabeth and reinstating the move protection till 28 March 2023, as previously imposed, given the time of year, and likeliness of further limited participation. Park3r (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Unanimous support, along with incontrovertible evidence in the request supporting the move. Obvious endorse. If you think it belongs at a different title propose a new move request. nableezy - 21:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)'[reply]

• Comment Unanmimous support from a small group of participants (which is itself telling, given the previous opposition: a move to a major city name would be expected to generate some opposition, founded or unfounded in policy). I might well have supported the move at this stage - although I would need an opportunity to weigh the evidence in the light of WP:CRITERIA, however, the manner in which it was done (removal of protection, quick move, no informing of previous opposers) and the generally low participation of South African editors on Wikipedia, which would mean a longer window for discussion would be needed, seems to have been procedurally flawed, at least. Park3r (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Moves are listed in requests for move, and there is literally zero chance a closer's judgment of consensus when the request, which was properly listed, was met unanimous consensus. If you think this should be changed back your options are limited to one IMO, make a new move request. This is a waste of time though, there is no question as to what the consensus of that discussion was. nableezy - 22:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• if it’s a “waste of time”, the discussion here will be closed. Stridency is not a substitute for consensus. Let’s allow others an opportunity to weigh in. Park3r (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This board has purview to review the close of a discussion. Not re-argue the move. It is impossible for a unanimous discussion to be anything other than a consensus for the position of unanimity. There was a very obvious consensus in that discussion. You apparently wish you had been a part of it, but Im sorry that isnt what this board is for. nableezy - 22:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• A quick close based on the consensus of a small group of editors, in the light of a lifted previous move block imposed following much more heavily trafficked previous discussions certainly would be in the scope of this board. Park3r (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's note A MR like this is not of the documented procedure, given that there had been no discussion with the closer, me before Park3r filed the review here. Instead, it was just a notice that they are challenging on procedural grounds, that they had not been informed as one of the participants of previous move discussion. There wasn't time to respond to the notice, with 2 minutes between them posting on my talk page and here. Formulating and typing this reply took already an hour. I do not recall a requirement to notify previous participants, although now that I think of it, it might be courteous to ping/notify them in this case. Nonethless, I do not view the closure as quick given that it was opened for at least the typical 7-day window that all RMs have. Considerations were given to the previous discussion, even though it was not stated in my closure, given the unique nomination statement, but I ultimately closed the discussion as such given the presentation of new evidence and concurrence. I stand by my closure. – robertsky (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (uninvolved). The purpose of move protection is to prevent damage from edit warring, vandalism, and such. Discussion-based decision-making is the opposite of that. The purpose of protection is not to prevent the possibility of consensus changing, nor to prevent moves from happening under any circumstance. Relying on protection to do what it doesn't do is mistaken reliance. There is also no requirement that previous participants must be pinged, and no requirement that the discussion must be longer than the ordinary one week. (I suppose I should mention that apparently the closure was an hour before a full seven days, but that's an immaterial technicality and doesn't warrant overturning.) Adumbrativus (talk) 06:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the move protection was because an explicit one year moratorium was in place as a result of a number of failed move requests, not because of edit warring or vandalism. That moratorium was lifted without notice, and the move request pushed through, without participation from any of the opposers in previous move requests. Park3r (talk) 07:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (uninvolved), but I do agree that it might be good to set an explicit expectation that if a RM moratorium is lifted and a new RM is filed, all participants in the most recent RM should be pinged. I think that would be a good change to avoid bad feelings, but I also don't think it would have mattered in this particular case - failing to notify interested parties would be cause for a relist if the consensus was very narrow / contested, but the new evidence and the overwhelming support suggests that is not the case here. SnowFire (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The “overwhelming support” seems to have have come from supporters of the prior move. Consensus may well have shifted (or not [1]}, however that’s not for this board to preempt, if there’s indeed evidence of a defective process.Park3r (talk)

The process could have been better to avoid exactly this worry, but to be realistic, even if the opposers had all weighed in and nobody had changed their minds, the very strong evidence presented by MarkH would have made this very likely to close as "move." But I suspect former opposers changing their minds would have been a likely possibility. Additionally, it could also be argued that the older RM shot itself in the foot somewhat by having the nominator be a well-known WP:RGW warrior rather than someone who would fairly assess the evidence, leading to skepticism of any change proposed by them. Basically, the article was only narrowly kept at Port Elizabeth before (perhaps partially due to taint from the old nominator?), and MarkH compiled truly impressive evidence to undo the moratorium. Per WP:NOTBURO, no need to re-run the RM due to something that technically wasn't even a procedural error, even if it would have been good practice. (But I agree that WP:MORATORIUM or the like should be updated to include the pinging suggestion and make this unhappy scenario less likely to recur in the future on closer cases.) SnowFire (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Te Pāti Māori (talk||history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

In closing this RM, the closer has stated in their closing statement that their decision was based on a headcount. In the discussion on their talk page, the closure states that policy-based arguments were "relatively equal in weight". It is inproper to decide the outcome of a RM based on a headcount, and instead the closer should have decided the outcome based on the policy-based arguments present in the discussion. Since the closer stated that policy-based arguments were equal in weight, they should have closed the discussion as "no consensus", rather than count the number of !votes. In addition to their statement on the number of !votes, the closing statement does not adequately address the arguments made in the discussion. Spekkios (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Looks like a standard gauging of consensus as is done on every other controversial RM, hardly a scandalous close. The closer should be mostly judging consensus not providing a supervote. If you want to argue that the arguments of the pro-move side were deeply invalid, or that something fishy was up (i.e. the 5 support voters were canvassed), let's hear it, but they appear to be good-faith and policy-grounded to me (ABOUTSELF vs. a contested COMMONNAME argument). As someone sympathetic to COMMONNAME arguments, the close seems fine to me. SnowFire (talk) 07:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, to go into it more, I don't really agree that policy-based arguments being equal in weight is always bad. Sometimes borderline and edge cases come to RM where Policy A says to use one title and Policy B says to use a different title, and it's just going to come down to which one the community thinks is more important. There's no need to prove one side "wrong" necessarily to allow a move if most editors favor one policy, so a close like this that acknowledges that some !voters have a point, but are outnumbered, is probably good for not ruffling feathers by declaring the "losers" wrong somehow. (Even if it apparently failed in this particular case? I dunno, maybe it's just me. I'd rather a closer said "you had a point but are outvoted" than "everyone who backed the losing option is WRONG".) SnowFire (talk) 07:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The issue I'm raising is that the closer hasn't properly judged consensus by weighing policy-based arguments. They have judged that the policy-based arguments have equal merit, and have proceded to just count heads, which simply isn't how consensus is determined on Wikipedia. I'm not arguing that policy-based arguments being equal in weight is bad, I'm arguing that if they are equal in weight, then the proper close is "no consensus", as that is how consensus is supposed to be determined on Wikipedia. Being outvoted is irrelevant, as no one in an RM is actually voting. --08:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC) Spekkios (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per SnowFire's insightful comments. In an ideal case, an article title can be decided algorihmically, just on the basis of available policies and relevant inputs (search results, pageviews, ngrams etc.) However, there are always edge cases, where one principle favors one title and the other another title. In those cases, all things being equal, I find it reasonable to go by votecount, as it is the best available gauge of how the community weighs the conflicting principles. As an extreme counterexample, imagine a RM with ten "support" and zero "oppose" votes being closed as "no consensus". No such user (talk) 11:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The close relies solely on a headcount and does not address the strength of arguments whatsoever. In the move request, there were a number of completely unsubstantiated oppose votes, most based on a supposed POV issue. When evidence in the form of sources were provided that refuted these arguments they were simply repeated. Editors argued that not everybody was expelled, failing to note that the proposed title included "flight". Editors argued that not everybody fled or were expelled, several scholarly sources were provided that said exactly that. An editor argued that "expulsion and flight" was a Wikipedia invention, and when several sources were provided using exactly that phrasing there was no response. All of the sourcing provided in the move request was on one side of the argument, and as Wikipedia consensus is not and has never been a vote, the number of people repeating the same bogus "POV" argument without any evidence should have been ignored entirely. The close ignored the discussion entirely except for the bolded !votes, and an examination of the strength of arguments in this discussion shows a clear consensus for the move. Which is why the previous move review was not overturn to no consensus but rather to vacate for a new close. That move review is now being used as support for a no consensus outcome when it explicitly did not support that outcome. Beyond that, the move had only been relisted for three days prior to being closed, making the argument that no new comments were coming premature. Nableezy 17:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse my own closure – if there was ever a dictionary definition of "no consensus", this would be it. Secondly, the move was reopened for an entire month without comment, not just "three days". Sceptre (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Um no, it was relisted three days prior to your close. Im aware you think it was no consensus, but just as in the close, here you simply assert it, making not even a token attempt to evaluate the arguments and their policy backing. That is not what consensus means on Wikipedia. nableezy - 21:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A relist does not constitute any discussion whatsoever; moves that have been relisted are closed within a week of relisting all the time without any issue. Red Slash 20:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You appear to be missing the point entirely. The move was relisted, and so placed in the listing at Wikipedia:Requested moves, 3 days prior to the close. Prior to it being relisted, it was not transcluded anywhere, and only people who were already watching the page would have even been aware there was a discussion ongoing. nableezy - 21:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to rename as proposed. Not involved in this request. I did close the previous request in August, and I participated in the previous move review in October. Whatever the opinions were in that MRV, the main displeasure was not really with that RM closure of "move". The main reason that closure was vacated was because of the way the closer had expressed the Arbcom suggestions. That displeasure led some editors to decide to "endorse" the close but disagree with the reasoning, others to "overturn" and still others to "vacate" the closure. Since the consensus to move that was found by the first closer has not changed imo, then this second close should be overturned and the article renamed. Emphasis is important that it does not matter that the first closer is an admin and the second closer is not. Both closers are experienced, long-term editors of Wikipedia. One person might see a consensus where another person might not. I found the first close to be reasonable, and still do, so I have to deem this second closure unreasonable. Wikipedia has its own definitions of "consensus" and "no consensus". There is no such thing as a "dictionary definition" of those terms on Wikipedia. In that move request the supporting arguments as a rule were much stronger than the opposing arguments. And there is your consensus. This article needs a better title than the one it has now, so it should be renamed as proposed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 06:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn: This closure demonstrated no real indication of an effort being made to weigh the evidence or arguments in the discussion, and instead used a rationale based on the prior close and the move review that vacated it - a move review that was closed with a quite explicit explanation of how the community took issue with the method of closure, not its outcome. In this situation, a closure coming to a different conclusion and outcome was very much in need of further explanation. The decision to re-close it just three days after another editor decided to relist it was also odd. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - as I said in the previous MRV, the issue with the previous close was not that it was incorrect, merely that it set a poor precedent by suggesting that some editors' views are less valid than those of others. On the substance, however, there's a clear consensus in favour of moving, given the NPOV titles and other strong evidence mentioned by the supporters. I am also worried by the closer's line above that "if there was ever a dictionary definition of "no consensus", this would be it"; WP:CONSENSUS on Wikipedia is decided by evaluating the strength of arguments and how the "support" and "oppose" !votes align with policy. It is not done through counting heads. Finally, the MRV was very specific that it wasn't an "overturn to no consensus" or any sort of endorsement of the prior title; the subsequent closer very definitely needed to provide a solid rationale for their close, particularly if doing so after only three days allowed for additional discussion; and the balance of opinion at the prior MRV was that the article probably should have been moved. Anyway, bottom line is that there's a consensus to move, and I think that should be the outcome here, a further relisting won't likely change that. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. On studying the discussion, one thing in particular stands out. The supporters of the move brought multiple sources to their case, while the opposers brought a few google searches (which mostly don't support them, as was shown), plus one Hebrew newspaper article. Bizarrely, that article is an op-ed arguing for "ethnic cleansing"! An own-goal in other words. RMs are supposed to focus on policy-based reasoning, and particularly on sources. In addition, the opposers brought invalid arguments like "not everyone was expelled" (that's why the proposed title includes "fled") and "most of them never saw an Israeli soldier" (discredited propaganda). This is not what "no consensus" looks like. Zero^talk 11:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - at first I was shocked at the comments I read here. Then I actually read the discussion. Sceptre doesn't need to explicitly say that the sky is blue when we can all see it; he doesn't need to say that dogs are animals when we all know it; he doesn't need to say why there's no consensus when there was obviously no consensus. The discussion was staler than the bread in King Tut's tomb, and it needed a mercy killing. Repropose the move if you like later on. Red Slash 19:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Would you care to explain what was obvious about "no consensus" here? Because a number of experienced closers see an obvious consensus here. Am I stupid for not seeing what is so obviously true that it is on the order of the sky is blue? nableezy - 22:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean, a whoooooooooooooooooooooooole lot of people kept saying "this title is NPOV, the proposed title is biased" and nobody really was able to convince anybody either one way or the other. I've closed a hundred or so moves in my day, too, and I would definitely have done no consensus had I closed this one. Absolutely inconceivable to say there was a consensus here. Red Slash 07:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "The proposed title is biased" is something anyone can write in any RM without understanding a thing. "The proposed title is biased" has no value unless it is accompanied by an explanation of why it is biased. Zero^talk 07:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  When an editor makes an assertion without any evidence and sources, and the response has sources to refute their baseless comment, that baseless comment should be given the weight it deserves, that being nothing. Consensus is not based on convincing people of anything, it is based on adherence to our policies and that is determined by the strength of argument, not the count of people parroting the same bogus argument. WP:NOTVOTE should be required reading for closers of discussions, as well as those reviewing those closes. nableezy - 17:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - some Oppose and Support votes didn't contain any arguments but others did, and some editors provided policy-based arguments. This cannot be interpreted in any way other than No Consensus.

Alaexis_¿question? 13:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse , this seems to be a case of forum shopping and bludgeoning. This is the third RM just on the talk page. The page now is NPOV, similar to Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_world. I also suggest a temporary ban on RM discussions on that page for everyone. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  How is taking a move request closure to move review forum shopping? This is exactly the right forum for it. Your comment here presents personal criticism and makes plain your opinion on the page's neutrality and your desire to prevent further discussion, but it is very unclear how any of this pertains in any way at all procedurally to the nature of the close. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn The original vacated close was based on two premises, the first somewhat debatable and the second that the proposers had the better argument. The original move review was requested because of the first not the second. The second close being reviewed here is based on no argument at all, merely a !vote count. The better argument is based on the sourcing for the proposed name which is laid out in the first para of the article lead and it is clear that the proposed name is in no way POV but a proper and correct reflection of the sources whereas those opposing allege POV without any evidence or otherwise provide no policy based argument at all. Selfstudier (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, there are both 'for' and 'against' arguments regarding the proposed move, the quintessential definition of "no-consensus". The current title has been stable for a long time and parallels the similar Jewish exodus from the Muslim world title. It would seem that this is the therefore the most NPOV word that editors have been able to live with regarding the characterization of these topics and therefore should not be changed. Chefallen (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  !Vote - for and against arguments are just the definition of 'discussion'; it has not bearing on consensus either generally or in a Wikipedia policy sense. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (involved). Neither side had knock-down arguments, and in the absence of a clear majority of votes this looks like no consensus to me. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The discussion did not lead to sufficient resolution on the issues of the common name, precision, and neutral point of view. The MR lasted a long time and was well attended. It is not reasonable to fault the closer for not being able to locate consensus. It's perfectly fine to have another discussion later on. —Alalch E. 00:18, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]