Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 April

< 2024 March	Move review archives	2024 May >

2024 April

Edward IV

Discussion was closed by a non-admin in favour of the move, even though consensus was clearly not in favour. The closure appeared to have little reasoning or valuation of the arguments behind it. Non-admins are advised against closing discussions where the outcome is likely to be controversial, which this one clearly was. The response to my approach was that "The role of a closer is primarily to apply policies and guidelines and only secondarily to count votes. In this case, the guideline's prescription is clear". If the latter were truly the case, there would not have been such a long dispute over its application. Deb (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's comment: I'll just repeat what I said on my talk page.
WP:SOVEREIGN's prescription, but they should be seeking a consensus to change that guideline, not waging dozens of battles across individual RMs. Until they do, it is the closer's job to apply policy as it is, rather than as some editors wish it were. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC); edited 14:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
What about the
guideline on consistency? Deb (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Topic-specific naming guidelines provide a stable framework by which to balance all five criteria (recognizability, naturalness, precision, concision and consistency). Their consistent application provides for what editors have determined to be the best balance of all five. If editors believe that the guideline improperly balances these things, they should seek to amend the guideline. Retaining a handful of titles that contradict a guideline because editors feel they are more appropriate, without defining and codifying why they are more appropriate in said guideline, ultimately decreases rather than increases the consistency of our titles. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: successful topic-specific naming guidelines provide a stable framework — but the recent contentious change to NCROY is neither successful nor stable, as mounting evidence affirms. The results of RMs prompted by the change have been all over the board, and a number of them have entirely failed to reach consensus: Holy Roman Emperors, Prussian kings, Swedish kings, etc. Continuing to try to apply a guideline that lacks consensus support in practice is what's making our titles about sovereigns inconsistent... and until we take the lessons of these contentious RMs to heart and revisit NCROY, it's unlikely to improve. ╠╣uw [talk] 00:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The new name is consistent with Edward VI, Edward VII, and Edward VIII. But more to the point, consistency does not apply to disambiguation. House Blaster (talk · he/him) 18:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (involved), both procedurally and on its merits. First, per
WP:BADNAC, a non-admin closure is not appropriate for moves in which the outcome either is close or is likely to be controversial — and the lengthy, highly divided, and at times even contentious nature of the recent spate of SOVEREIGN-related discussions such as this one unquestionably meets that threshold. Despite this, the closer refused to consider reverting even when asked by two editors (myself one of them).
In the RM itself the closer chose to provide no rationale beyond simply linking to the guideline, which ignores the substantial amount of debate (and lack of consensus) on the very question of whether applying the guideline in this case would yield the best title. The closer also seemed not to recognize or acknowledge that policy was invoked on both sides of this debate. Instead, to judge from their three-word closure at the RM, they considered the guideline to be literally the only relevant factor, which again is very much at odds with the outcome of the discussion. In the post-RM follow-up on their talk page, and in comments they've made here in this MR, the closer seems to support quite firmly the position advocated by those supporting the move despite the discussion having failed to reach such a conclusion.
It'd be best to vacate this closure and allow the request to be closed instead by an administrator. ╠╣uw [talk] 17:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Endorse (involved) while there was a bit more opposition (14 v 10) and the close looks a bit of a supervote it was closed in accordance with the guideline which yes is controversial but that's what the guideline is and I don't see a reason to ignore the guideline when the !vote tally isn't so lopsided to ignore the guideline. Ferdinand VI was endorsed at MR despite the !vote tally being 8 v 4. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another example of a bad closure. Deb (talk) 07:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, several of those who commented at
WP:NOTAVOTE – which is why it was endorsed. The same applies in this instance. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Endorse. < uninvolved > We see several RMs, some still ongoing, where this issue, which has been discussed endlessly, is either being handled or mishandled. In this case the guideline along with its community consensus is crystal clear. And local consensus, no matter how strong numercally, should not overthrow the community consensus of the guideline without very compelling reasons. This closer did not see reasons that were compelling enough to ignore the guideline. I think that's reasonable and in accord with the RM
ed. ^{put'er there} 19:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
There was more participation and a greater margin of opposition in this RM than there was in the November RfC that changed the wording in an obscure guideline. Who is the "local community" and who is the "community consensus"? Can I make up my own guideline and force the change across pages regardless of widespread opposition? Walrasiad (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Venue is everything. If you want to change the guideline, open an RfC at
WP:VPROP). House Blaster (talk · he/him) 18:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Or simply observe RM results. After all, one way we determine whether a guideline merits the kind of attention you describe is through RMs just like the one we're considering here. When an RM seeks to apply the provisions of a guideline (or in this case a questionable change to a guideline) but fails to achieve consensus, that's a legitimate and useful result that can then prompt a reappraisal of the guideline, including discussions in other venues about how to improve it. That's less likely to happen if we simply rubber-stamp-approve even contentious or problematic requests simply on the grounds that "the guideline exists". ╠╣uw [talk] 00:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. (involved) There was an RFC in the autumn which clarified this exact point, as to whether of England and similar constructs could be dropped for primary topics, in line with
WP:CONSENSUS which requires closers to view discussions through the lens of policy. — Amakuru (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Endorse (uninvolved) this is one of the instances where the guideline is crystal clear, and those opposing didn't really rebut it apart from an IAR argument. I agree an RfC would be necessary in order to overturn this. SportingFlyer T·C 22:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved): the closer correctly applied
WP:NOTAVOTE. Yes, an admin closure would arguably have been preferable, but that is not a sufficient reason to overturn the move. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Endorse (uninvolved) per my comments at WP:DfD. Mach61 03:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn for an admin or better experienced closer to close, due to the closing statement being inadequate, and moreso because of the closer’s statement in response on their talk page: The role of a closer is primarily to apply policies and guidelines and only secondarily to count votes. This statement reveals misunderstanding of the role of the closer and mustn’t be allow to stand. It is not the role of the close to apply policies and guidelines, but to summarise the participants’ discussed application of policies and guidelines. It is not acceptable to say there is a role, secondary or otherwise, to count votes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Of course it's voting. House Blaster (talk · he/him) 18:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nuance can be important. A clumsy close of a contested discussion looks like a WP:Supervote and is a WP:BADNAC. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus

Closer made a "no-consensus close" (with the exception of

WP:TITLECHANGES. The close itself appears reasonable, but the decision on what title should be utilized given a no-consensus close is contrary to policy, and I am opening this move request to request overturning that aspect and moving the article to "Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus".

Note that there have been two other discussions on this, at RMTR and the article talk page; the discussion at RMTR is the cause of this move review being opened, as while three uninvolved admins have agreed that the article is at the wrong title, none have been willing to unilaterally move it over full move protection and the objections of the closing admin - they have instead recommended that a move review be opened. BilledMammal (talk) 10:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Endorse close. The closer correctly interpreted the discussion as concerning a request to move away from the current title. They correctly observed that a proposal to return to the initial title was among the actively discussed options, however it did not garner necessary support – the community has undoubtedly supported the initial rename, even if it was undiscussed. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you say "the community has undoubtedly supported the initial rename"? Maybe I missed some context, but that doesn't seem supported by the no-consensus close, at least. The closer clarified that "There was no consensus in the discussion for anything except
WP:NOYEAR." XDanielx (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: Kashmiri was involved in the RM (opposed the proposed revert and replied supporting removing the year). Involvement should be disclosed per #Commenting in a move review. SilverLocust 💬 04:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn (uninvolved) for the procedural reasons BilledMammal mentioned. A no-consensus close should have restored the default mentioned in
WP:TITLECHANGES, rather than keeping the result of an improper move (a clearly-controversial move that was done without a RM). XDanielx (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Overturn (uninvolved). The title was
Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus. No objections to a new RM after this review is closed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@Extraordinary Writ Before the 2 April move, the article had existed for a whole of 19 hours, so this is a weak argument. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and overturn (uninvolved) this is a bit of an odd RM as it seems there was opposition to revert the page move, and I endorse the no consensus to revert the move to the original title, as there was consensus not to move it back. As a result
WP:NOYEAR and would overturn the move to the originally suggested title. SportingFlyer T·C 23:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:TITLECHANGES is not applicable here and should be disregarded – it only refers to situations when an article title has been stable for a long time (bolding mine). In this instance, however, "consulate" was never stable for more than a day: the article was first renamed from "consulate" to "embassy" within 15 hours of its creation[1]
and remained so for two weeks, with a few later changes, back-an-forth, but always "embassy" was the more stable title. Yet, there was nothing resembling "long time" in this very new article.

Anyway, if policies are contradictory, we have to refer to local consensus, and there was no consensus to support the proposal of going back the much less stable term "consulate". — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the final sentence of the paragraph you quoted from it clearly does apply; If it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title the article had when the first major contribution after the article ceased to be a stub was made

Further, the new title wasn’t stable because it was disputed an hour later on the talk page by opening an RM - stable means undisputed, not unreverted, as for it to mean otherwise would encourage edit warring. BilledMammal (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1 April: Article created

2 April: Article moved to "embassy..." [2]

14 April: Article moved to "consulate" [3]

Back-and-forth moves follow.

The stable name is obvious, no need to pretend. — kashmīrī ^TALK 02:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You missed a few relevant events:

1 April: Article ceases to be a stub [4]
2 April: RM opened, with editor saying "I suggest moving it back to 2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus" [5]
13 April: RM closed as "no consensus" [6]

BilledMammal (talk) 02:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RMs can be opened at will, they only mean that an editor didn't like the existing title. We need to jduge consensus. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not responsive to BilledMammal's point, which wasn't about how long the title was live, but the fact that it was immediately contested. Clearly there is no stable title, since the page has only existed for a few weeks and the title has been debated essentially the entire time. Hence the aforementioned "first major contribution" default. XDanielx (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, this supposed procedural "clarification" by Kashmiri here is factually wrong.

2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus. The present title of the article is not the default unless a consensus explicitly finds so. — Amakuru (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Move the building destroyed was the Counsulate as everyone can check by their own [7][8]. The current title is wrong and misleading, moreover failing to comply with
WP:PRECISE. Nicola Romani (talk) 07:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Bad vote. This is a move review discussion – what is being discussed is only whether the closer closed the discussion in line with our policies and consensus. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (uninvolved) on the no consensus but yet not moving back to the original title conclusion. I had said my part in the RM/TR discussion. I don't mind it being moved to Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus if the consensus was found to have the year removed from the title. – robertsky (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (uninvolved). Dylanvt boldly moved the page at 14:26, 2 April. Classicwiki disagreed with the move and was entitled to revert it per
WP:TITLECHANGES does not apply.) I don't object to dropping the year from the original title – that would be a less clean rollback, but is probably more sensible. Nurg (talk) 10:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Overturn (uninvolved) per Extraordinary Writ. I also dispute the removal of the year given how little attention it received. Pilaz (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (uninvolved) procedurally per
WP:TITLECHANGES. But also since the current title clearly does not match the article lead. Marokwitz (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Endorse close (involved) The closer correctly applied

WP:CONCISE. Aquabluetesla (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

This was a no-consensus close, though, not a close based on policies like

WP:MR). XDanielx (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Overturn finding of "no consensus", Endorse move (involved): I see very little well-reasoned support for moving it back to the original title, or original minus the year, and plenty for the current title. It seems to me that the consensus was to keep the title except for removing the superfluous date per NOYEAR, hence why I Endorse the move for correctly applying that policy. --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today (Australian TV program) (closed)

ed. ^{put'er there} 20:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

This move request should be re-opened as closer wasn't able to take into account that the 1982 TV program is the obvious primary topic for "Today (Australian TV program)", which has aired for 44 years in comparison to the 1960 TV program's one year. I support the second move occurring, but the first move doesn't need to occur and this article should be reverted back to its original location at "Today (Australian TV program)", it is the most likely topic being referred to when readers search for this program. Happily888 (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. You are suggesting an incremental improvement over the result of the last RM which indicates starting a new RM to further improve the names. There is no need to do anything with respect to the RM nominated here for review.—Alalch E. 12:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). The close was reasonable based on the discussion that had occurred up to that point. I concur with Alalch that, if you're looking to change the title again (including back to the previous title), starting a new RM seems more likely to yield a productive discussion than reopening the prior RM would. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Digital enhanced cordless telecommunications (closed)

Digital enhanced cordless telecommunications – Closure endorsed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

There were three people involved in the discussion. One person initally opposed the move but later changed their mind and supported. The other two people continued opposing it, of which one never replied to my comment. They stated their opinion for a title, based on incorrect reasoning which is not in line with the relevant Wikipedia policy. My point is: the common name of the subject is its abbreviation and the abbreviation is primarily used for this subject. I have proven this with various different shops and manufacturers as examples, and in discussion with the closer also Google Ngram and book titles. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Unfortunately there was clearly no consensus to move, the examples were not convincing to those who participated in the discussion. Try again in a few months. SportingFlyer T·C 16:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at the dates of the comments in this discussion. I provided the examples to the user YorkshireExpat, who agreed with me in the end. The last comment by an opposing user was 06:05, April 3rd. Most of the examples in the top discussions are from after that moment, so it is not unreasonable to assume the other users haven't seen them. PhotographyEdits (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that's a reason to overturn a lack of consensus, sorry. SportingFlyer T·C 03:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Start an RM at some point in the future by including all or most of those arguments in the nominating statement.—Alalch E. 21:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make much sense. You seem to think that the arguments hold merit, but Wikipedia is
WP:SNOW). Then why not reopen? Then I don't have to wait months and write everything again. PhotographyEdits (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Well, please let me try to show how sensible it is. This RM closure was a

ed. ^{put'er there} 04:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

My point is that the following about no-consensus is not true in this case:

> This may be because a discussion has fractured into several possible titles and none seem especially suitable, or simply because equally strong arguments and appeals to Wikipedia policy and outside sources were found on both sides

The policies cited by users opposing the move were either irrelevant (

WP:ARTSINGLE). PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Endorse. < uninvolved > Good, reasonable decision. Again, editor PhotographyEdits, wait a few months and try again if you still think a title change is necessary. ed. ^{put'er there} 04:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Endorse (uninvolved). The closer, BilledMammal, was correct to point out the sources cited in the RM (all apparently product listings) are unreliable. The information provided on the closer's talk page may be reliable, but needs to be presented at a future RM. (PS, I've gone ahead and informed BilledMammal about this discussion since the user who began it did not.) ~~ Jessintime (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Opposition to Chavismo

Reading Beans may have been unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion: NoonIcarus, a user

common name in the English language

) has been opposed to both presidencies.

Overall, the "Opposition to Chavismo" title is inaccurate, "Opposition to Chavismo and Madurismo" is a mouthful and having two different articles would be an unnecessary

concise

, precise and is the common name for the movement that opposes both Chavismo and Madurismo. Also, having an article move proposal on such a controversial topic being closed with no involvement is not recommended. The move discussion should be reopened and relisted. --WMrapids (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen Since no one participated in the move discussion apart from the proposer, and the move is clearly controversial especially given the POV-pushing, we should treat this as a reverted unilateral page move and re-open the discussion to get a better consensus.

SportingFlyer T·C 03:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not oppose to this being reopened but calling it a reverted unilateral page move is uncalled-for; the supposed controversial move was opened for 2 weeks with no one supporting or opposing. Doesn't look so controversial to me. Best, Reading Beans 06:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen (uninvolved): Whenever someone requests reopening a recent
WP:CONSISTENT is not aimed at inter-language consistency.) SilverLocust 💬 22:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Endorse.~~ Overturn. (Restore old title.) < uninvolved > In light of current events, the older title should be restored, and a fresh RM should only be opened if there are new and strong arguments to do so. The RM under review was opened only about 3 months after a not moved decision and so appears to have been out of process. ~~Not unsympathetic toward the nom's well-made points; however, we are here to evaluate only the closure, which was reasonable and in accord with the~~ ed. ^{put'er there} ~~22:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)~~ 16:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
There's only one way it could have been closed, though, because there was only one participant, who is now topic-banned. The close itself was not the issue, the procedure was the issue... SportingFlyer T·C 22:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I see a close and agree that I would have reached the same conclusion, then I pretty much endorse. Consensus can change, and when there is no opposition for twice the time it should take to reach a conclusion, then I see it as a change of consensus probably due to complacency on the part of topic-tired editors. Ya snooze, ya lose. In terms of what this review board is here for, that was a good close, reasonable and in line with
ed. ^{put'er there} 23:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm sorry, but a move discussion with only one !vote is not "consensus." This is no different procedurally than unilaterally moving the page using the Move tool, even if it is not the fault of the nominator, and then having someone else notice it was moved several weeks ago and reverting. I see absolutely no reason not to reopen this even if the proposer wasn't topic-banned. SportingFlyer T·C 23:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you've never closed a move request that was attended only by the nom. Over the years I've closed several like that. What makes this request any different? Editors had a full week plus a relisted week and then some. What would reopening accomplish? It might draw attention from those here at MRV, but if it takes two weeks and an MRV to change the consensus found by the closer, then there is something wrong with this picture. And I'm sorry right back to ya because a discussion with only one !vote is a consensus – even a page moved without discussion is a consensus until challenged. But wait! that's not the case is it. This consensus is the result of a formal move request. And now, after two weeks of complacency, one other editor opens an MRV? That may be enough for some, but it is not enough for me. This RM close should stand on its own as viable for now.
ed. ^{put'er there} 02:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah, that doesn't make any sense to me. An AfD with one participant is soft closed. I don't see why a RM should be treated any differently. And an RM by a user that's now topic banned shouldn't carry any weight at all. SportingFlyer T·C 03:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm genuinely sorry if my words seem cryptic to you. Like SJ below, and as I said before, I am not against what appears to be the probable outcome and consensus of this review. Perhaps there should be further immediate discussion? The close was good, and yet maybe you and others here are onto something. ed. ^{put'er there} 00:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

A few points in reply:

(1)
WP:SOFTDELETE
. It would be aberrant if that counted as a stable consensus only in RMs (in contrast to content editing, deletion, and bold moves).

(2) If the closer had seen the previous RM with opposition, I would consider it unreasonable to close the move as "uncontested" without the participants in the previous RM having been pinged. (And even if the closer wasn't aware of the previous RM, that would still be a reason to reopen under the second bulletpoint of
WP:IMR
.)

(3) There is no reason to wait several months to continue a minimally-attended discussion. If that were an actual requirement, it would be all the more reason to reopen this RM. SilverLocust 💬 00:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Agree to disagree.~~ Close was good ~~and should be endorsed~~. This consensus at a formal move request was to move to the proposed article title. The longer editors wait to open a fresh RM, the better their chance of success. Recommended wait time is minimum one year ~~– I cut that in half to six months to give the nom the benefit of the doubt~~. Good close. ed. ^{put'er there} ~~02:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)~~ 16:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Although I lean to preferring the current title, per the balance of statements on that talk page after stripping the blocked user’s statements, restoring the old title on the basis of the March RM being too soon after the November RM, is nit unreasonable. However, noting the blocked user was all over the November RM, I would call this a “no concensus” situation and recommend a fresh RM at two months. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Relist / Reopen / Allow an immediate fresh RM~~. Nothing wrong with the close, but the nom has reasonable points that weren’t discussed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

move back to the old title, and discourage a fresh RM for two months. No criticism of the close, but with ArbCom being involved, a central editor now topic banned, another sock-blocked, it’s a mess and a pause would be helpful. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen. (Uninvolved, though I closed an earlier RM on this article.) I'm normally a big proponent of
Consensus can change, true, but if nobody but the nominator has commented then I don't think we have enough evidence to determine whether consensus has changed on this topic. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Allow immediate renomination~~ [Move to the previous name per the rest of this discussion.12:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)]. Editors who would have seen the nomination and would find no reason to object (and did not !vote, presumably) under a premise that the rationale, based on the equivalencies drawn, seems fine, were not introduced to the facts properly, because, indeed, the Venezuelan government =/= Chavismo. Calling anyone who opposes the current government as anti-Chavista implies an essentialized notion of the government as embodying Chavismo, which is obviously questionable. It is actually original research. Under these circumstances it can't be said with sufficient certainty that the decision reached was a good decision. RMs exist to provide the community with time and structure to reach a good decision. The process does not exist for the sake of process. The nominating statement in the reviewed RM is probably not conducive to making the best decision. Therefore, instead of reopening, allow an interested editor to start a brand new RM that is not based on questionable equivalencies.—Alalch E. 20:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please note that the nominator of this review has been blocked indefinitely. ed. ^{put'er there} 04:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
That was unexpected. I still think allowing immediate renomination might make sense considering the new discussion on the talk page and the fact this is or was at ArbCom. SportingFlyer T·C 22:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by User:Primefac with the allegation that he used multiple accounts abusively. Primefac might have a helpful comment, but my leaning is to note that WMrapids (talk · contribs) is the sole driver for reopening/ relisting, others merely supporting, and so for practical reasons at least this should be closed, with the standard moratorium of six months before a fresh RM, unless another editor in good standing speaks up soon and want to pick up the nom’s cause. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe, I think enough editors have spoken for relist/reopen for that to speak for itself. This discussion should be assessed on its merits, not who started it. TarnishedPath^talk 02:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting also that this RM was started a little over 3 months after the previous one. TarnishedPath^talk 02:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A relist or reopen needs at least one person who will champion the new arguments. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
others merely supporting that's... kind of how nominations work? If there was unanimous opposition to this proposal, sure, close it and let someone else re-file down the line, but "procedurally closed because people are agreeing with a now-blocked user" is one of the weirdest takes I've seen in a while. Primefac (talk) 07:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To attempt to clarify, and speaking for myself, I supported the MRV nom because he had new arguments. But I am not personally persuaded by the arguments. And noting now that he began by arguing editor behavioural problems, and is now blocked for “abusive” sockpuppetry, this MRV is severely tainted. Unless someone really believes the nom’s 2nd paragraph arguments and is prepared to argue them in the reopened RM, I don’t think the RM should be reopened.

Further, talk page progress, at Talk:Opposition to Chavismo#New title "Opposition to Chavismo" + LEDE language, does not to support a return to the prior title. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The initiator of the conversation you linked even noted they would have likely opposed the name change. SportingFlyer T·C 16:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:WMrapids consistently opposed the move. Do I misunderstand your point? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact both participants in that thread have indicated that they are not fans of the move. TarnishedPath^talk 01:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a good argument. It was started out of process. TarnishedPath^talk 13:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Relist / Reopen~~ Move to previous article name (uninvolved) Given the severe lack of involvement in the RM and ~~how soon~~ that it was barely over 3 months ~~it was~~ after the previous RM which did have ~~more~~ involvement and which arrived at a completely different close ~~it would be best to reopen to allow a more fuller consensus to form~~ the RM was completely out of process and the result should be overturned. TarnishedPath^talk 02:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you discount the contributions from the now blocked abusive sockpuppeteer, the prior RM, Talk:Opposition to Chavismo#Requested move 22 November 2023, reads very differently. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a hard time seeing how anyone could read that RM as resulting in a move even without WMRapids. TarnishedPath^talk 01:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I support restoring the old title. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. I should have stated move to previous name to start with given the RM was out of process. TarnishedPath^talk 00:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opening a new RM was not "out of process". There isn't some automatic
WP:MORATORIUM created every time a requested move is closed with a consensus, particularly not one that lasts for four months, which was the amount of time between these two RMs. And the nominator plausibly asserted a change in circumstances. SilverLocust 💬 17:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Here at MRV if a RM that resulted in a clear moved or not moved outcome is followed in less than a year by another RM, it is considered out of process unless there are significant new arguments or old arguments have been strengthened. With no consensus decisions an RM is out of process if it begins less than three months after the decision. Waiting times are pretty arbitrary and based on past experience of successes or failures of the new RMs. "Out of process" is just a description – nothing's etched in stone. ed. ^{put'er there} 18:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
While you have previously called these out of process RMs a number of times, that shouldn't be conflated with what "is considered out of process" by MRV commenters generally (or ^[WP:SNOW closed as having very little chance of getting a different outcome, but they shouldn't be procedurally closed as invalid process absent an express moratorium (or a consensus to change that observation into a procedural waiting period). SilverLocust 💬 08:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Regardless of your disagreement on the term "out of process", NoonIcarus listing an RM barely three months after they'd had the previous RM that they'd listed not moved would be considered by many to be disruptive. It's not a stretch to call it "out of process". TarnishedPath^talk 12:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2024_April&oldid=1221520787"~~