Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2022 May

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

Forgive me for I am compelled to open this review of my closure. There appeared to be no consensus in this request for either the current title or the proposed name. So I believe I followed the closing instructions at WP:RMCI#Determining consensus correctly when I moved the article back to its stable, long-term title, Farux, which had been in place from August 2008 until January 2022. Another editor has reverted this to "Farukh" against the long-term consensus, which makes it necessary for me to learn if I was correct both in my reading of the lack of consensus and in the way I followed the closing instructions to move the article back to its stable title. Thank you for your participation. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 23:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I read this through last night with an eye toward closing it, but Paine beat me to it. I don't see a consensus either. Neither side's arguments are particularly strong: once we discount all the SPAs and non-policy-based arguments (e.g. appeals to the "official name", the previous name, or the name that the villagers themselves use), we're left with one side arguing that the the raw number of Google hits proves the WP:COMMONNAME, and the other side arguing that those queries are flawed in some way (e.g. because they don't consider alternate names). The emphases on the raw numbers of Google hits are problematic since COMMONNAME focuses on prevalence "in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources", and the number of Google hits is only loosely correlated to that (see also WP:SET). In short, neither side makes a particularly compelling case as to the common name, so given the divided !vote tally "no consensus" is the best conclusion. I also agree with Paine that reverting to the stable title (Farux) was appropriate per WP:TITLECHANGES, but since no one seems to prefer that title, I don't really have a problem with the choice to move it back to Farukh for now. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The move discussion regarding moving "Farukh" to "Parukh" was closed with no consensus. I understand how it would be difficult to close it any other way because of the level of disruption in the discussion.

However, Paine Ellsworth then moved the article to "Farux" stating that it was the "long-term consensus name" for the village pointing to WP:RMNOMIN [1].

As I understand the guideline, moving an article back to a stable name (which I understand from the guideline is not defined as a name that the article had when it was a stub) is recommended when "a requested move is filed in response to a recent move from a long existing name that cannot be undone without administrative help", I don't believe that was the case here - the move from "Farux" to "Farukh" was not the topic of the move discussion.

The anglicization of "Farux" to "Farukh" was a not a point of contention or the subject of the move discussion, this article (and the majority of the Nagorno-Karabakh geographic articles for villages) had minimal content and sources (using GEOnet Names Server as the only source for the name) and there was little historical or political context present on the article for years until recently.

"Farukh", the stable name post-stub status for the article that I moved the article back to, has been used widely in international media along with the likely common name "Parukh" (https://www.google.com/search?q=Farukh+Nagorno-Karabakh&tbm=nws). Farux is problematic on many accounts - it's not the common name, as well as not the current Azerbaijani official name for the village, which is Fərrux.

I believe the rationale used with regard to the guidelines in moving "Farukh" to "Farux" after the move close was incorrect and created a clearly problematic state for the article with regard to the article's readability and quality. AntonSamuel (talk) 03:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above by editor Extraordinary Writ, when there is no consensus for either title in a move request, then Wikipedia's article title policy is to move the article's title back to the most stable title. So when I moved the article back to "Farux" I was following the community consensus in the article title policy. While I'm not particularly married to the name "Farux", I am in complete agreement with article title policy, which should be followed unless very good reason can be shown that it shouldn't. In the move request there was no consensus either for "Parukh" or for "Farukh", so until such consensus is built, the article title should comply with policy and be retained at "Farux". P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 04:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the close. Good close. An even better super close would have commented on why there was no agreement.

This MRV is really about the post RM move. AntonSamuel (talk · contribs) appears to have initiated a post-RM move war. Is this correct? Ask him to revert that move. Warn that move warring is block worthy. If he fails to self-revert, revert the move and warn him. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: I don't intend to start a move war, I believed the move to "Farux" was problematic enough to justify a move back to "Farukh" as I explained above. If the administrator recommendation for me is to self-revert I will do it. AntonSamuel (talk) 05:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{Admin help}} <- Declined, this discussion should come to a conclusion before some sysop-only action is needed. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:AntonSamuel above, not unreasonably, requests that an admin confirm that one should not bold-move post RM close, and that having been informed, he should self-revert his move.

If he objects to the outcome of the RM, as closed, he should talk to the closer, and if dissatisfied, take to to MRV (which is here). SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: Thank you for requesting an administrator to help, to be clear, I did discuss the issue with the closer before moving the article back: [2] [3] AntonSamuel (talk) 06:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It can be noted here that there was discussion where I expressed that the title should remain at "Farux", and also that editor AntonSamuel had actually supported the move to "Parukh" but in all fairness did not revert back to that title, instead reverting back to the current title in the RM, "Farukh". P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 15:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse no-consensus close, overturn Farux. There is indeed no consensus on whether to spell the village's name with a P or an F, which was the main topic of the RM. But there was a consensus shared by both supporters and opposers to spell it with a "kh" at the end of the name and not with an X, with extensive English-language sourcing backing up spellings in "-kh". The "last stable version" rule should be ignored here because it goes against both consensus and WP:UE. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have no idea where you're seeing a consensus for the "kh" ending! Farux with an "x" was only mentioned once – see comment below. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 20:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's sort of the point. Surely if any of the many participants thought the article should have been moved back to "Farux" they would not have been shy about saying so, no? Colin M (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Doesn't matter, or shouldn't. Neither title had consensus. Article title policy is to move the article back to the stable, consensus spelling, "Farux". That should be the end of it until editors build a consensus for another spelling. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 06:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The participants supported either "Far(r)ukh" (all RM opposers) or "Parukh" (all RM supporters). Both these spellings end in "kh". Since everyone supported a spelling with "kh", there is a consensus to spell with the "kh". — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the first place, you and editor Colin M are raising an issue that was not discussed in the move request. That means you are rearguing the request and not focusing upon the closure. At MRV we focus on the closure and do not reargue the proposal. In the second place, the argument that just because both supporters and opposers wanted a name that ended a certain way, a consensus for that ending emerged appears to me to be lacking in logic. Even if there is a consensus for the "kh" ending, which first letter should it be? "F" or "P"? There was no consensus for either the current title or the proposed one. No consensus. So the title that the article has now, "Farukh", is a title that does not have consensus. The title should be moved back to the long-term, stable title that had consensus for more than thirteen years. When editors can come to a consensus for a different spelling, only then should the title be changed from "Farux". P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 15:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's perfectly possible for consensus to be against the stable name and for it to be not used accordingly. Forcing the stable name when consensus is against it violates consensus. This is not news for you. The reason why the name of the Canada convoy protest is a thing is because you in particular rejected a stable name because consensus was against it. Canada convoy protest "is a title that does not have consensus" because another no consensus RM where it was found that "a broad agreement that status quo is less than ideal" turned up a month or so later. In the case of Farukh, everyone agreed to do the exact opposite of using the X, and you violated consensus by forcing the X when everyone supported the kh. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Of course it's "perfectly possible"; however, you have failed to show anywhere that consensus was explicitly against the stable title. The stable title was only mentioned once in the RM and not because anybody was against it. Editors did show two things, they either liked one or the other of the choices in the RM, and they had no explicit opinion about the stable title. If the involved editors liked or disliked the stable title, they did not express an opinion about it at all. Therefore, there are only two consensuses that emerge from that RM: 1) the consensus of the stable title, a consensus of more than thirteen years, and 2) that of the article-title policy, a community consensus that shaped that policy. Both titles in the RM were either supported or opposed pretty evenly, so the only, the absolute only choice was to return the article back to its stable title. You have not shown any consensus against the stable title, Farux, because you can't read all those editors' minds. We don't really know if they were for or against the stable title, because they never said so either way. You have yet to show any good reason to go against policy. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 19:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no-consensus close, overturn Farux. I think Mellohi! is right on the money here. The close looks like a good application of WP:NOCON on the surface, but on closer inspection, moving back to Farux seems to be splitting the baby, in that it's an outcome that none of the participants supported (compare WP:NOGOODOPTIONS - the situation is sort of analogous to if we had an RM proposing to move from Farux, where there was roughly equal policy-based support for moving to Farukh and moving to Parukh, but no participants arguing to keep the current title). Colin M (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There was no consensus whatsoever for either spelling; therefore, there was no consensus nor mention that ending the title with "kh" rather than "x" was the preferred spelling. In fact there was only one mention of "Farux" in the entire discussion, which was one editor pointing out to another editor, "the previous name was 'Farux'. One of the users moved the page to Parukh recently, after more than 13 years." So until a consensus is garnered for either Farukh or Parukh, the article title should go back to its stable, long-term title, "Farux". That's policy, Wikipedia article title policy. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 20:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion I think Paine should make a new RM on Talk:Farukh to change it from Farukh to Farux. He may use the stable version argument in his RM submission statement. Then we can verify directly whether there was no support for the X, as Opposes will be directly against it. A third party (i.e. someone who did not participate in either the previous RM, the extra RM, or this MRV) gets to close it. If it closes as "not moved", the "kh" is used, and if it closes as "moved", the X will be used. The RM should not be closed as "no consensus", as that would be redundant with moving in this specific case. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you want me to open a move request to move from a no-consensus title to a title that already has a 13-year consensus? What really should happen here is that we should go with Wikipedia policy and title the page with "Farux". Then any editor could begin an informal discussion to try to build consensus for another spelling. When a consensus begins to emerge, then a new RM can be opened to change "Farux" to... whatever other spelling that has gained substantial agreement. That's really the way this should proceed. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 20:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your policy concerns could serve as your argument in the new RM. If enough people agreed with your argument, the new RM could be closed as "move" and we'd be done.
    • The new RM would eventually end conclusively, while reiterating the exact same policy argument in this MRV ad nauseam is not leading anywhere. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's putting the cart before the horse. The stable title already has consensus; you have not shown otherwise. The title "Farukh" has no more consensus than has "Parukh", "Farrukh" or any other title suggested in the RM. Articles deserve consensus titles, not titles that have not gained consensus. Almost everybody else gets that, why don't you? P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 21:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't get it either. You're saying that, in the absence of anyone mentioning "Farux" in the RM, it should be assumed to have consensus (because it was the stable title before). I'm saying the opposite. The absence of evidence (for consensus in favor of "Farux") is actually evidence of absence in this case. Why? Because if editors supported the title "Farux", they would have said so. That's how RM discussions work. We're allowed to order off-menu. Colin M (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Off-menu", brings to mind what may be a plausible comparison... just as nobody mentioned disfavor for "Farux", I have never told you what I don't like on my pizza. And from that you would infer that I don't like pepperoni. We cannot read their minds, so if the involved editors don't explicitly detest Farux, there really is no way of telling from the RM who is okay with it and who isn't. It's ludicrous to think we can, just as it is with the pizza, since I do like pepperoni (and sausage with lots of mozzarella!) P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 22:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse There is no consensus for the proposed names as such there was no need to engage in this move war. The problem is serious and I don't think that another page move should be started in "few months" but anytime when talk page discussion makes it somewhat certain that which name would be the better choice. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It has been virtually settled that the original RM had no consensus on the P vs. F debate it was focused on. But the main debate in the MRV now is whether something written on a policy page suggesting what to do next should be held as a hard statute, i.e. is treating Wikipedia as a bureaucracy appropriate here? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Old tired argument used only by those who know that policy does not support their args. Policy is shaped and formed by consensus, long-term consensus similar to the long-term consensus that supports "Farux" as the title of the article. Just as it is not fair to the article for it to sport a no-consensus title spelling such as "Farukh", it is not fair to the many editors who worked hard over the years to form Wikipedia policies. You might sing a different tune the next time you participate in a policy debate and the ideas you support are included in the policy. No, Wikipedia tries to avoid bureaucracy, which is why the policy WP:IAR even exists. But there has to be good reason to go against the article title policy, and no good reason to do that has been shown in this move review. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 00:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some time later this week I plan to ping all the RM participants towards somewhere to directly discuss about the X vs. kh problem, and whether they approve of the X spelling. Could be on the article talk, could be on Anton's talk, wherever. If such a discussion directly demonstrates consensus against the X (even without resolving the old P vs. F debate), would "Farukh", which I assume was the longest stable title without the X, be fine by you? A major counterargument of yours was that the participants did not voice direct opposition against the X. But if we did verify their opposition to the X, would the story be different? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • That might be better than expecting reviewers here to "assume" consensus is against the "x" ending. Only two editors (on my talk page) have expressed disfavor for the "x" ending. If it can be shown that there is consensus against the "x", that would bring us a step closer, yes; however, it would also present us with an interesting dilemma (def. #1: "A circumstance in which a choice must be made between two or more alternatives that seem equally undesirable"). The RM made it clear that neither "Farukh" nor "Parukh" enjoyed consensus. If you gather together all the RM editors, or even if you just start an informal discussion to see who shows up and gives an opinion, and you find that the "x" ending no longer enjoys its baker's-dozen-year-long consensus, then we will have a situation in which no title has consensus! In a case like that, what would you name the article? Still think it would be better to revert the bold move, land the title back on "Farux", and reopen discussion from that point, because as of right now, this present moment, the only title that enjoys consensus is "Farux". It would be better to build a consensus for a new title rather than to completely destroy it and leave us with no title that has consensus. I'd like to find out what title is in demand. I'm not interested in what title ain't in demand. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 04:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • If my suggested investigation does end in ruling out the most stable title, we may instead move on to the second-most stable title. The RM was mostly free of Armenia vs. Azerbaijan partisanship, surprisingly (you noted especially that Anton restored Farukh even though he was a Parukh supporter); instead it rested mainly on COMMONNAME arguments. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Don't misunderstand, please, because I consider "argument" to be beneficial for Wikipedia (I've seen so many times when differing opinions led to encyclopedic improvement). We differ in that I don't consider "Farukh" to be a stable title, because the move log shows with this edit, "Farukh" first became the title just four months ago. That was just after editor AntonSamuel had moved the page to "Parukh" and was promptly reverted back to "Farux". No stability there especially compared to the stability of "Farux". So there is no "more stable" or "less stable" title, there is only extremely stable (Farux) compared with the instability of any other title. "Farukh" is a no-consensus, non-stable title, and I think this article deserves better than that! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 07:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • What you're saying is like claiming that mosquitoes and elephants are the same size (when they are clearly not) just because they are both smaller than blue whales. There is a meaningful difference of stability between "Farukh" and "Parukh"; "Parukh" lasted for only two days while "Farukh" lasted for months. Wouldn't "Farukh" be significantly more stable than "Parukh"? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • If a store has no spinach, then Popeye goes without. The only title with stability is "Farux". Farukh cannot be "more" stable than another title if it has no stability at all in the first place. 4 months on Wikipedia has never been enough to establish stability, especially when compared with more than 13 years of stability enjoyed by "Farux".
              • Our cards are on the table, nothing more to add. I'm going to wait and see what the closer thinks. Please don't engage me again on this issue. Turn off the oven; we are done here. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 21:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and move back to Farux, with a humungous WP:TROUT slap for AntonSamuel for just willy-nilly overturning this. This is a miniature wheel war and it's not okay. The longstanding title is certainly Farux. I am uninvolved and agnostic regarding the actual best title for the article, but the close was great. (It could have been a bit longer, but I don't think that would have forestalled these problems.) Red Slash 20:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was an obstructive, unnecessary non-admin close. إيان (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No, this was a case of you being "hopelessly uncivil". As the close says, if and when you feel able to discuss in a rational, non-confrontative manner, you are welcome to issue a new RM. I fully endorse the close. I was involved in that I commented on the RM. CapnZapp (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Post closure comments moved to talk page.)

• Speedy overturn per the discussion that has now inexplicably been moved to the talk page: this was a frlagrantly inappropriate speedy close. – Uanfala (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  At least it seems to smell nice Red Slash 20:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Typo corrected. – Uanfala (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This review has been reopened as of 16:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC). P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 16:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Ignoring the terse nominating statement, the bigger issue is that the nominator is asking us to revisit a failed move request by literally copying and pasting his statement from the failed request into a new one and not providing any additional evidence. Such a request is bound to fail. He needs to find better evidence for this request to have any chance of passing. -- Vaulter 17:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn, even if it just due to the inappropriate wording of the close. It is not mature to respond to incivility by escalating the personal commentary into administrative actions. A close like that is not ok. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The only sane thing to do is to just repropose the move without being so poisonous. All the dude had to do was just repropose the move. @SmokeyJoe:, I was doing him a favor, because that move request (which is a very important move request that I'm personally very intrigued to learn more about!) is doomed to fail for reasons completely separate from the merits of the move. It's something that would have been made obvious to the initial proposer if he'd just bothered to contact the closer, as he's required to do before filing a more review. Why people think the best path is to file a move review instead of just refiling a move request is beyond me. Red Slash 20:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Your approach and tone there and here is not calm and considered, but reflects the poor tone of the editor you criticise. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment (I have already weighed in, above the "post closure comments" divider): On the contrary, I find it entirely reasonable to speedy close a requested move clearly phrased in incendiary language. If incivility stops you in your tracks, good. "Assume good faith" does not mean Wikipedia has to accommodate editors whose judgement is clouded by personal beefs. Remember, nobody is permanently hurt here - that the page stays at its current name for a while is okay, and a new move request can always be opened later. CapnZapp (talk) 09:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not about the location of a page. It’s about whether an RM discussion was closed right. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, and I am saying the RM discussion was closed right. Nobody is discussing the location of a page. CapnZapp (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A strong criticism of the close is that it did not reference opposition on the substance of the proposal, and engaged in inappropriate personal comment.

  User:Old Naval Rooftops asserted a bad faith request, which does not mean incivility, and with which I am still have trouble understanding. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There is more to the close being right, the closing comment has to be a good closing comment, which it wasn’t. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No. We should not discuss just one step of the procedure in isolation to the others. If the first step is malformed (or incendiary, in this case) there is no good reason to evaluate the other steps, or insist on formalia. Just get rid of the trainwreck; another train can be started later on, and our message is clear: "we won't administer move requests where anybody opposing the request is suggested to be racist." Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 08:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You’re neither right nor wrong, about everything. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn (reopen) RM was not open for 7 days, previous RM was over a year ago, and there was a least one support. I don't see a reason that this should have been closed early with non-admin close. PaleAqua (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If the move is reopened, it will be closed as "not moved" or "no consensus" because the initial nomination was incendiary. The move request is DOA. I did a mercy killing that allows the proposer to repropose the move immediately, in such a way that it might be possible for it to be successful. I would've explained all that to him had he done the bare freaking minimum by contacting me on my talk page, which is required for Move Reviews to be posted. Red Slash 20:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Closers should be considering the strength of the arguments, so not convinced that it is DOA. The discussion already had one support, and one comment still considering when you closed it earlier, SNOW is what allows DOA requests to be closed early. I agree that contacting the closer should always be the first step before a MR, and should have been done here, but it is only strongly encouraged but not required. Wouldn't it have been better to comment on the move request itself if you though the nomination was broken but that the moving page should be seriously considered? PaleAqua (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If the nomination is broken, the procedurally best thing to do is not to consider it at all. CapnZapp (talk) 08:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist Since the incivil closing statement has been brought up so many times already, we should also note that the RM was closed after only 36 hours. That is surely not enough time for an RM to be open, even if a snow-close is a likely outcome. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What is the problem with prematurely closing an obvious snow-close? (Genuine non-snark question) CapnZapp (talk) 08:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It was not for a SNOW close. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse speedy closing a basically disruptive RM, with opposes piling on. We should only assume good faith until it's demonstrably proven otherwise, and that move request was inflammatory and in demonstrable bad faith, and was properly expedited. No such user (talk) 08:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. <uninvolved> Agree with editor No such user and other endorsers above. There is (or should be) zero tolerance for incendiary RM nominations, so the closure was spot on! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 03:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as closer for reasons I've made clear above. Dude, all you had to do was re-request it, or even reword it to not be incendiary, or heck, even talk to me about it, or even talk to anyone about it, or (best of all) simply not make a request like that in the first place. Red Slash 19:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse It was not a logical RM to begin with and it could have never succeeded either way. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There seems to be a consensus that this RM had a SNOW-chance at passing anyway. That solves one main question (was is okay to snow-close this RM?), but that leaves behind "was the closing reason rude?". Most endorsers focused on addressing the SNOW part. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe because they are not so severe or this page only discusses the page moves. GenuineArt (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I won't attempt to guess what the outcome could have been after the full 7 days, but the discussion at the time didn't look to be near SNOW territory at all. – Uanfala (talk)

• Weak Overturn and relist. Incivility in move requests should result in the move request being speedily closed and the nominator warned, but this is not currently policy, and I don't see a strong enough reason to WP:IAR. BilledMammal (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the rule(s) that is being ignored by endorsing this RM's closure and keeping this RM closed, especially when you yourself say "Incivility in move requests should result in the move request being speedily closed and the nominator warned," which is exactly what happened? And fyi, the policy that covers this guides us to not tolerate "abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors." The editors who, according to the nom, wrote that article in a racist fashion, are precisely who the nom targeted with their opening statement – against policy! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 02:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears that we don't actually have any rules telling us when a discussion can be closed; all we have is WP:CONSENSUS and WP:INVOLVED. We have some essays and information pages that limit when a discussion can be closed, but while these are widely followed, and usually ignored only under WP:IAR (see WP:SNOW), they aren't PAG's. I still oppose this closure, because I am not confident that a consensus exists that would allow discussions to be closed due to incivility in the opening statement, but with less strength than before.

    Of course, the nominator should be warned per WP:PA, and if they continue making such nominations, they should be banned. In addition, if an editor does open a discussion proposing that we allow discussions to be closed as WP:NOCONSENSUS due to incivility in the nomination, I would support it - please ping me. BilledMammal (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The consensus that allows discussions to be closed has already been shown to you. It's a community consensus that shaped the policy. Now who is ignoring a rule? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 07:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe WP:PA currently supports closing discussions based on the opening statement being uncivil. I believe it should, but I also believe that change would be sufficiently controversial that we should discuss it there, rather than producing a local consensus here. BilledMammal (talk) 10:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe WP:PA currently supports closing discussions based on the opening statement being uncivil.

The "uncivil" statement was "Can we have an article title that's not racist yet?" Suppose it had been you who had titled the article "Berbers"? Would that not be a personal attack against you? I see it as a personal attack against the editor or group of editors who decided to call the article "Berbers". YMMV; however, IMHO WP:PA most certainly supports closing discussions, not based only on the opening statement being "uncivil", but based upon it being an uncivil personal attack. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 12:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The community consensus is already in-place in the PA policy. If this local consensus turns out to be overturn and relist, what we effectively say to the nom is "Go ahead an make personal attacks. You can get away with it. We won't do anything about it." I don't know, but I think that's just wrong. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 12:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is a personal attack, and we don't need a hypothetical to make it against me - it is against me, as I opposed the proposed move. However, I don't think they will get away with it - if they keep making personal attacks, they will be sanctioned. BilledMammal (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. Because after the personal attack at the RM was shut down, instead of doing the right thing and opening a new RM with a neutral opener, the nom had the gall unmitigated to open up a move review with the statement "This was an obstructive, unnecessary non-admin close." And O my gawd look! Young Mr. Borim has managed to get support and sympathy from reviewers for how set-upon he was by such an obstructive, unnecessary non-admin close. Scuse me, I think I'm gonna go hurl. ... Okay, that's much better! Now, where were we? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 14:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that I don't think Red Slash's closure was obstructive, and I don't think that the belief that it is supported by current policy is unreasonable. However, my interpretation of policy differs, and that means I need to support overturning this closure. Unfortunately, I think we are going to have to disagree here. BilledMammal (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Sokay, disagreement often leads to improvement of this project. I might even agree with you had I seen even an inkling of remorse from the attacker. But alas and alack, only more disruptive editing. He and the rest of us should be ashamed of ourselves for continuing this complete waste of everybody's time – except his. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 14:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A ponderous review is good, not shameful, and not a waste of time. Anyone who feels this is a waste of time need not spend their time here. Aggressive remarks often come from a belief that the person is not being listened too. Whether true or not listening is much better than cutting off. This is not the main street being blocked.

If there is incivility, the proper response is to respond with escalation. Begin kindly, then warn, then block. Shutting down for formal process is not a good response. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Think I've seen all the escalation I can handle. The rm closer and the endorsers here in this review that never should have happened are unwilling to let the nom get away with a personal attack on other editors, as well as this further disruption. YMMV. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 11:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's surreal and discouraging that what is blocking the productive discussion that was underway at the RM is an allegation of "incivility"—and that a policy of no tolerance for abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race... ethnicity, nationality has been cited—when the article title is literally an ethnic slur, and what seems to have ruffled feathers is no more than that it was identified as such. A "personal attack"? Imagine the millions of people personally attacked by the article title as it stands.

Furthermore, the premature, inappropriately-worded non-admin close on a requested move with fruitful discussion underway sets a bad precedent. إيان (talk) 11:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, you think you are fighting fire with fire? Interesting, and it appears to be working somewhat. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 11:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]