Persian people – Clear consensus that the closer's statement was insufficient, discounted comments inappropriately, and did not reflect the outcome of the discussion. The result of this review is overturn to moved. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The closer's statement lacks any analysis of discussion that took place during the relevant move request. Moreover, it strangely suggests that "support !votes" have been "excluded". This is not satisfactory. Having written to the closer, he suggested that only "arguments" were considered, rather than bare votes, but this does not seem to be the case. There were clearly policy-based reasons cited for the move in the discussion, and these seem to have been ignored. I am an involved party, but I would say that anyone can see that this closure was poorly carried out, and therefore I am requesting either an overturn of the decision, or more likely, a relisting of the move request. RGloucester — ☎21:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (for reclose) <uninvolved> Closing summary is lacking for the arguments provided especially for a no-consensus result. PaleAqua (talk) 03:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BADNAC. NAC-ers should not be closing contested discussions, nor controversial discussions, and this was both. Two other NAC-ers above would have closed differently, meaning NAC-ers as a group are prone to closing discussions like these randomly. When challenged, an NAC-er should quickly agree to revert their close, because the purpose of NACs is to help the processes, not to cause the creation heavier review processes.
involved. I *Opposed* and was prepared to come back if the discussion became serious.
The discussion should not be overturned to a "consensus to rename", because there was no such consensus.
The discussion should not be relisted, because it was not a particularly good nomination.It would be better to restart the discussion afresh than to revert and relist Statement rewritten --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A good nomination will revisit the reasons for no consensus in previous discussions:
A good nomination also will address the fact that this page is a magnet for newcomer POV believers to post screeds insisting on some change. The POV issue with this page is that there are many who believe that there is one glorious PERSIAN. Compare Iranian peoples, and read the talk page histories. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Paine Ellsworth, no, do not put me down as "ENDORSE". My considered opinion is that User:Samee should not have even attempted a close, and further that he should have reverted his close on first challenge. As a practical matter, given that MRV discussions can go many weeks, and are a serious interruption to discussion, I think it is better to go back to a new nomination under a new formal RM header than to relist. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for mentioning me. I was unaware about two previous move requests and neither I preceived it as highly contentious nor deliberately tried to close the discussion. I edit in good faith and honestly take time in weighing consensus. I do re-evaluate once it's opposed and remain open to the idea of consenting anybody revert the closure themselves or go for a better evaluation at the MRV for the eventual benefit of the encyclopaedia. I reiterate that I respect the opinions stated here. sameeconverse09:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Joe, please try and explain why you get to determine what is a good or bad nomination? The community established consensus for the plural demonym form for people articles (where such a form is plausible) many years ago, and the vast majority of such articles have been in line with that format for quite a long time. It is certainly possible that there may be special circumstances with regard to 'Persians', but no one satisfactorily made such an argument in the discussion. In fact, those present who did not make seemingly unrelated arguments about the different word Persian (ignoring precedents like German/Germans, Italian/Italians &c.) clearly agreed that standardisation was desirable in this case. In as much as this was the discussion that was had, the discussion cannot possibly be closed on the basis of arguments not actually made in the discussion. If you have such an argument to make, you should at least be in favour of relisting the RM so that it can be made. RGloucester — ☎18:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Richard, on the nomination being good or bad, I get to determine my opinion for myself, and state it briefly. The nominator had barely a dozen talk page contributions before making that nomination, and I get the impression that he hadn't read the previous RMs for that page. I contend that a better nomination explicitly addresses the contentious points of the previous failed nominations. A better nomination is measured by a more collegial discussion that is more likely to result in a consensus.
I believe that you would have made a better nomination. "The community established consensus for the plural demonym form"? Assuming you link/source that, it would be persuasive. For the consideration of CONSISTENCY, I looked straight to Iranian peoples and found the CONSISTENCY claim bunk. I too agree that standardisation is desirable, but that is not the argument I read in the nomination. Instead, I read something about something common place being "wrong", and it reminded me of how that talk page attracts newcomers seeking to right great wrongs. I support relisting, but as a practical matter for other editors to engage equally, I think it better for a fresh nomination to be made after this MRV concludes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to moved. (Uninvolved) First, it’s long-standing practice to assume a bare support vote is in agreement with the nomination, so those comments should not have been disregarded. I also found the nomination to be pretty convincing and it is implicitly based on WP:CONSISTENCY. Calidum23:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, astounded that someone could think that there was a consensus. That discussion does not show a consensus, or even a no consensus, it more resembles a gathering that hasn't been called to order yet,
You find the nomination convincing, but have to resort to the implicit to find a policy-based reason, CONSISTENCY, which is bunk if compared to the closest analogous page, Iranian peoples? Note the not-plural vs plural, and look for the strong underlying POV at play.
"it’s long-standing practice to assume a bare support vote is in agreement with the nomination". Are you referring to the closer's "per discussion with support !votes excluded"? I've looked a few times and can't work out why he wrote that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know what that means either, so we need help from Samee on that. You really can't compare this Persian people article with the Iranian peoples article. Note that "peoples" is plural, which means there are several different groups of people that fall into the category of "Iranian peoples". And one of those groups is "Persians". Paine Ellsworth, ed.put'r there04:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean bare votes are to be discarded in their entirety. They do supplement but cannot significantly influence the consensus. My statement "No consensus per discussion with support !votes excluded" meant that there was no consensus for either outcome (moved or not moved) although the support votes had a numerical majority. I also clarified it on my talk. sameeconverse13:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Samee: thank you for clarifying. You didn't seem to give much weight to the two guidelines cited in support of the rename, WP:NCET and WP:PLURAL. It's mostly NCET that sways me because it cites the WP:CONCISE policy and calls for plural demonyms (such as "Persians") to meet that policy. So it seems that those community consensuses of the guidelines and policy are the deciding factor in the RM, don't you agree? Paine Ellsworth, ed.put'r there14:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple policies and practices are balanced while weighing consensus at closer’s discretion. Others may disagree for perceived partiality to a certain policy. My closing was predisposed on neither’s side and I stick to my closure of no consensus, which might be mistaken, but I am certain it will be revisited shortly following the due process. sameeconverse16:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, note the plural POV games at play. You can, and must, compare. Read the corresponding Farsi page fa.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/ایرانیان_فارسیزبان "Persian-speaking Iranians" and its talk page. The subtle distinctions of plural people/peoples is very long term contentious, and one big underlying issue is the notion of a singular "Persian", whether Persian language, or Persian people. The sourced first sentence of Persian people#History of usage makes it clear that it is definitely not simply singular. You have to compare the articles Persian/Iranian (synonyms) people/peoples to appreciate the underlying POV of the RM proposal. And that's before considering the for most "Persian" denotes the ancient, and that's before you recall that the most common use of "Persians" is in relation to a cat breed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Still a couple of issues I have, 1) there are still Persian people in the modern age, and while they seem to be lumped together with several other "Iranian peoples" (Modern Iranian-speaking peoples include the Baloch, Gilaks, Kurds, Lurs, Mazanderanis, Ossetians, Pamiris, Pashtuns, Persians, Tajiks, the Talysh, Wakhis, and Yaghnobis.), they are still called "Persians". What else would they be called? So "Persian people" does not only refer to the ancient Persians, but to modern ones, too. 2) The cats are seldom if ever referred to in the plural, not "Persian cats" nor "Persians". Even as a group they are referred to as "the Persian cat" or just "the Persian" in an already cat-announced context. So "Persian" is the ambiguous term, and "Persians" refers to the people, both ancient and modern. Paine Ellsworth, ed.put'r there05:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All valid issues to discuss, was not discussed. A counter point might be that "Persians" is not a formal word acceptable in a title (this does not use the word while directly addressing a question of the identity of Persians. I think we have agreed that it was a bad close? I've clarified my opening statement with "Overturn". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn/move (uninvolved, though I did have a comment there, not a support or oppose) – Looks like a pretty clear consensus to move per a sensible nomination. Excluding support votes makes no sense. Dicklyon (talk) 04:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and move. The closing rationale does not make much sense. While it is reasonable to give less weight to WP:JUSTAVOTEs such as RReagan07's, there were multiple policy-based supports. On the other hand, the last oppose by SharabSalam was completely misguided (arguing against "Persian", singular) and should have been discounted. Concerns about ambiguity with cats have been refuted and I don't think they were sufficiently persuasive. No such user (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Thomas Green (died 1506) – overturn as no consensus, recommend further discussion on talk page on proposed titles. While I don't believe this was necessarily a bad close, my reading of the requested move discussion (and this discussion here) is that while there may be a consensus for a page move (though that is not 100% clear either), what the destination is did not have a clear consensus to action a page move. I personally have closed RM's in the past with a "consensus to move, no consensus on where to move" outcome, which can help guide further discussions. I recommend a discussion takes place to determine whether consensus exists for a new article title. I would usually relist, but given the age of discussion, I initially though opening a fresh RM right away would be wise. After discussion with editors and reflection, I am instead recommending that discussion take place to determine alternate titles, and then an RM be opened at that time. (closed by non-admin page mover) StevenCrossinHelp resolve disputes!15:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This RfC suggested moving Sir Thomas Green to Thomas Green (grandfather of Catherine Parr). The move had originally been proposed as non-controversial, but it had not been addressed there, and a different editor from there decided to convert it to an RfC, becoming the new nom. It progressed for three weeks and was closed by QEDK in favor of a move to Thomas Green (died 1506), a change in target seems to have muddied the interpretation. In summarizing the close, QEDK said There is a consensus against the first proposed requested move. In strict numbers, there is a 4 to 2 for the move to "Thomas Green (died 1506)". Considering one opposer did not voice an opinion on the other title and the other opposer chose to supplement other opposers who supported the title, I'm inclined to move this to the new title.
The problem is that this is not an accurate summary of opinion, not even close. In strict numbers, there were 7 participants, with only 3 in favor of a move and 3 *voting opposed, plus one who expressed an ambiguous opinion, that their analysis of other page names that nothing "need stop this article staying where it is". At best that is 3:3 and at worst 3:4 against. The closer gets their 4:2 count by misconstruing one statement of mine, where I indicated that if the then-current name [Sir Thomas Green] was deemed unacceptable, there were better move targets than the one proposed. That somehow got turned into a *vote in favor of a move in spite of it being in a contribution explicitly labeled Oppose, explicitly predicated with a conditional that it only apply if the existing namespace was unacceptable (the nom incorrectly had claimed that policy mandated a move), and also in spite of me indicating no fewer than four times later in the discussion that there was no good reason for a move. Indeed, I was the most vocal opposer of moving the page, yet the closer has counted me as being in favor. The other two opposers were also incorrectly discounted by the closer. The first is said not to have explicitly express opposition to the newly-proposed alternative target, but their opposition was based on favoring the WP:NATURALness of the existing name, so that would seem to stand against any less elegant alternative. The other was said to have "supplement[ed] other opposers who supported the title", when neither of the the other opposers supported the 'new alternative' title. Thus, a 3:3 split lacking consensus for a move became, in the eyes of a closer, a 4:2 with only weak opposition, predicated on the incorrect (and inconsistent with the discussion) supposition that all three oppose votes only referred to the originally-proposed target, and not to any move, which at least two of the three clearly expressed and the third agreed. Agricolae (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify something, the closer's basis for counting me in favor of a move is that I was the one who first mentioned the eventual destination namespace. Were I to say, "murder is awful, but when it happens I would hope the murder victims don't suffer too much" that is indeed establishing a ranked preference, but is not to be interpreted as in favor of painless murder, it is simply damage mitigation. I explicitly couched it to indicate that if a move was necessary (the initial proposal had I was anticipating the false claim that the existing namespace was invalid) then there were better targets than the one proposed, while arguing repeatedly (particularly when it became clear that the claim that policy mandated a move was inaccurate) that no move was actually needed. No move>>>>>>>alternative>>proposed is not a preference for the alternative name over no move, as the claimed 4:2 count would imply. 15:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agricolae (talk • contribs)
Overturn move. Agricolae made opposition to the move perfectly perfectly clear in every edit to this discussion, so I don't see how anyone could possible interpret this as support for the request. On the basis of basic English comprehension, which involves an understanding of the word "if", there was no consensus for a move. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. At the very least this is no consensus, but if I were closing I would actually go as far as to declare it "consensus not to move". Several participants stated that the previous name was acceptable, and not prohibited. Furthermore, they noted that the title satisfied WP:NATURALDIS, one of our naming criteria. That makes the policy argument for maintaining the status quo a strong one, and the move was opposed explicitly by two, and implicitly by two others, who pointed out that the existing title was perfectly valid and compliant with policy. Overall, absolutely no basis to close as moved. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (closer) As I have repeatedly explained to my colleague Agricolae, you cannot choose which part of your viewpoint is to be taken when. Simply put, since atleast three other editors voiced their opinion on an alternate page title (as did Agricolae, as a secondary preference), there was no reason for any closer here to not take their alternate viewpoint into account. You cannot express multiple conflicting opinions and expect the same outcome. As I have stressed again and again, if Agricolae was against the move, they should simply have expressed their opinion of being against any move. Given, that they said that if the page is moved, here's a preference, I took that into account, as any sensible closer here. I would also like to contest Phil Bridger coming out of the woodwork as usual to oppose anything I do, it's bordering wikistalking now, but that's an irrelevant matter. Agricolae made opposition to the move perfectly perfectly clear in every edit to this discussion is simply false, given that they also expressed an intent for an alternate page title, albeit secondary, it was still an opinion, which if it wasn't intended to be taken into account, should have been explicitly stated and not used as a straw in an argument after you did not get the outcome you prefer. The 4:2 count is hardly significant as I stated again, if I took PBS' oppose at face value, and the "per opposers" to take into account everyone who opposed the RM (which btw was everyone, including the nom), the latter vote is on a very mixed basis, and would still bring the numbers to 4:2 but this is about consensus, let's not forget that. Agricolae is stating that I have diminished oppose votes and misconstrued their vote, but stating If, for some reason, this is deemed unacceptable, then I would much rather see Thomas Green (d. 1506)... for the explicit purpose of not moving is not possible. I further explained my logic of why there was a consensus in the first place, ...I proceeded to check for any alternative consensus, which I did find, as there were 4 editors explicitly supporting it. And an opposer which did not make a note of it (but I assumed that as an opposition to all moves) while the other remaining opposer (excepting you, because you supported the alternate) stated "per opposers" which would mean that I as a closer, would assess his opinion based on other opposers, which as I already stated was that the consensus was against the first requested move, but a narrow consensus on the alternative "Thomas Green (died 1506)" and thus solidified my decision on the requested move. I would have guessed that would have explained it but evidently not. --qedk (t 桜 c)19:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would invite User:QEDK to withdraw the allegation against me before it is escalated. I am not stalking anyone, but simply call out bad decisions whoever makes them (if you search through my history you will find that I at least once did the same to Jimbo Wales himself) and happen to have QEDK's talk page watchlisted and saw that that editor followed the same practice that I have seen before in not acknowledging obvious mistakes. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "I Oppose, but if a move must be made then I prefer it to be moved to X rather than Y" is an entirely commonplace !Vote, and it should not be viewed as a vote for moving to X, if there is otherwise no consensus to move. It is Simply saying that if there is a firm consensus amongst other participants that a move is necessary, and no consensus where to, then that user would prefer X. This is fairly basic discussion analysis and I'm surprised that an experienced editor like QEDK is interpreting it differently. If there is some aspect of this I've missed, in what looks a routine no-consensus, then I'll be interested to hear it. — Amakuru (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly it is a commonplace vote, but discounting Agricolae's vote would sort the matter into a narrow consensus as well, not a no consensus as you put it — which is exactly why I took their vote on the other merit. If you are voting your conflicting solutions, it will definitely result in contradictory results. Revoking one part of your vote in favour of another to meet an outcome you want is unethical at best and literally problematic at worst. Either way, I trust other editors to assess the RM and my replies for themselves and will be agreeable to the outcome of this move review, whatever that may be. G'day. --qedk (t 桜 c)06:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@QEDK: Yes, but you shouldn't discount Agricolae's vote because they did vote "oppose" as their first choice, and for entirely legitimate reasons. As did others in the discussion. As SmokeyJoe points out below, there might have been a case for a fresh look at the (died 1506) option, but that should be via a fresh RM, (and as a closer you can explicitly give your permission for that fresh RM to be started). Such a close should not be carried out by disregarding oppose !votes already cast. That's not fair, and does not reflect the conversation at hand. As I said above, far from "revoking part of their vote", what Agricolae did is entirely normal practice - to have a primary vote and then still give secondary opinions on what to do if there is consensus against your primary vote. As you're a respected and experienced editor who is considering a run for adminship, I would advise you from my own experience that there is no shame in making a wrong call sometimes, but the smart response to that is to concede the point - a simple change to no consensus and allow a revote, rather than calling those questioning the close "unethical", and accusing others of stalking you. Just IMHO, but I think it's something to think about. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: You're getting me wrong here Amakuru, I explicitly said that if the resulting mandate of this discussion is that I am wrong, I will accept that I was wrong, but I'm not the type to back out prematurely from a viewpoint that I imposed on myself, that I thought was the right decision. Now, coming to your statement about me accusing others, you do not have the full picture (and this is not the place to discuss it). I have no qualms with anyone stalking my contributions, I was just getting exhausted with Phil's relentless opposition to everything I do and the fact that their entire interaction with me has never once been positive, despite me explicitly asking them to quit it and bury the hatchet once and for all, but one that Phil ignored, in spirit and in actuality. Again, not something for this discussion. I am not running for adminship and probably will never poll at ORCP anymore fwiw — the feedback at ORCP is (was) valuable for the critique and that is primarily why I did. I am not a great editor and I will not make a great administrator, I'm just a volunteer doing his bit for the encyclopedia, so it's best that you judge me in that accord. --qedk (t 桜 c)04:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Amakuru: here is why I think "closer's discretion" should determine this outcome. Yes, Agricolae's !vote was to oppose this page move; however, Agricolae's rationale (and as closers we pay close attention to arguments in the rationales) was specifically conditional...
If, for some reason, [the previous title] is deemed unacceptable, then I would much rather see Thomas Green (d. 1506) [...]
So the new title, Thomas Green (died 1506), was Agricolae's 1st choice IF the previous title, Sir Thomas Green, "is deemed unacceptable". That previous title was indeed deemed unacceptable, so Agricolae's rationale conditional was indeed met. Rationales mean tons more to closers than mere !votes, as everybody here knows. This closure should be endorsed!Paine Ellsworth, ed.put'r there19:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There was very obviously no consensus in the discussion that the previous title was unacceptable, so Agricolae's "if" didn't come into effect. This just comes down to basic comprehension of English, something that both the closer and you seem not to have. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Paine, but therein lies the issue. You say the previous title "was indeed deemed unacceptable", but why? I'm not seeing that at all. PBS's vote quoted from two separate policy/guideline pages, the first of which encouraged naturalness, and the second of which noted that using Sir in the article title is expressly allowed if there is a good reason to do so. Opera hat also commented that although other Sir Thomas Greens did exist, none are notable, hence the previous title is allowable. And although Agricolae did give the secondary vote which has been mentioned, their primary vote also set out in some detail why there is no reason to change the status quo. Closers discretion applies in borderline cases, or if the votes are not clearly expressed in line with policy, but in this case both policy arguments presented, and also the numbers, were against the move, and there is simply no way that such an RM is ever closed as "move". — Amakuru (talk) 22:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was shown that no policy forbid the existing namespace, or even favored a move, so that left a non-policy-based decision. With 4 supporting the acceptability of the existing namespace vs only 3 arguing for a move, the only way to get a consensus in favor of a move so that the existing namespace would be deemed 'unacceptable' and the 'if' conditional would be justifiably invoked would be to first invoke the same 'if' conditional and thereby shift my !vote from the repeatedly-expressed opposition to a position favoring a move. That is not how conditionals are supposed to work. Agricolae (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Amakuru, the strongest oppose arg was PBS's, which was against moving away from the "Sir..." qualifier. Other opposes were weaker because they included no explicit policy/guideline-based args (although they were implicit, which may or may not hold the swing toward non-endorsement). Then there was the nom's, Roman's, eventual support of the present title, and Necrothesp, who opposed the proposed title and suggested the present title. All this makes the call very close, and I can understand how the closer reached the conclusion that the present title was generally not preferred. So I might have closed with "consensus to move away from the present title and no particular consensus to move to any title" and might have chosen the present title with a "no prejudice" to start an immediate new RM in line with the closing instructions. Suppose my endorsement's a bit weak, however it does swing that way. Paine Ellsworth, ed.put'r there03:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a patently false. I provided policy based arguments here [1]The quoted guidelines discourage use of these honourifics except for disambiguation purposes, and here [2]While the policy on honorifics . . . has several explicit exemptions, including "The prenominals Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady". . . . It does not touch on page names, but its policy of leaving as-is whatever is already present would, if anything, argue against changing a page name over a prenominal.. I did not give a conditional rationale regarding a move. I gave alternative targets were there to be a move, while arguing in a non-conditional manner that I thought no move was necessary, and that a policy-based argument could be made arguing against a move. It is also false to claim that the eventual target was was Agricolae's 1st choice if a move were necessary, as you did earlier - I gave three alternatives, with pluses and minuses for all of them, and I explicitly said of the one later chosen I usually don't like death dates. My preference would probably have been Thomas Green of Green Norton, but I didn't bother to rank them because I never wanted anything but no move, I just considered any of them better than the destination that was the formal proposal on the table when I made the comment, and I did not revisit it later because it never occurred to me that my explicit policy-based arguments and !vote would be completely ignored and my position hijacked to support the opposite of what I had been arguing for two weeks. Agricolae (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It occurs to me that you may be thinking I didn't make a policy-based argument at the time I !voted. That is true, but the original RfC simply was that someone had proposed it as a non-controversial move, which isn't exactly policy-based itself. When policy-based arguments were finally made by the nom and proposer, I explicitly refuted their application of policy, referring directly to the same policies they did. There is a huge double standard here if their 'somebody wanted it' RfC is counted as policy-based because they later mis-cited policy in support that doesn't really say what they claimed, while I get no credit for policy-based rationale with my 'I like it the way it is' with later policy-based argument favoring 'no move' and demonstration that they were misapplying the policy that they were using as support. As I said explicitly, . . . neither the policy on honorifics nor that on page names dictate such a change, but that is not policy-based? Plus I somehow get counted on their side of the consensus? Agricolae (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct on all counts, Agricolae. I had referred to your initial rationale; however, I'd hoped I was clear when I wrote, "although they (policy/guideline-based args) were implicit...". As closers, we are compelled to consider both explicit and implicit citations of policies and guidelines. I cannot read the closer's mind; however, it appears to me that the closer gleaned a rough consensus to move away from the old title, and a rough consensus to rename to the new title. I endorse because, even though I disagree with the closer and probably would have closed as rough consensus to rename and no consensus as to which name to choose, since the present title had been suggested, I would have chosen it with a citation of the closing instructions that allow for an immediate new RM if the new title is not acceptable. And I still think that the close should be endorsed as "closer's discretion". Looking at the present state of this MRV, I could most definitely be wrong; however, that's my take on it. Paine Ellsworth, ed.put'r there22:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru, I think it's fair to say that I did explain my logical conclusion, right? I do not think Paine Ellsworth is any more right or wrong than you are (and as this MRV decidedly draws to a close, it will be decided). @Phil Bridger: I do not mind you complaining, stalking, whatever, quit spewing your bitter vitriol on Wikipedia, it was fine when it was about me, but dragging other editors just because they support my viewpoint is in terrible taste and assuming bad faith at best. Just grow up. @Amakuru:, case in point. --qedk (t 桜 c)04:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Sokay, qedk, and thank you for your words. You might be surprised to know that people have been uncivil to me before both on and off Wikipedia, and about 87% of them turned out to be horses' asses (8% were even worse). So there's a good chance... !>) Paine Ellsworth, ed.put'r there04:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Being explicitly against something, but also giving advice in case the community decides to go another way is neither unethical nor giving multiple conflicting opinions. It should in no way negate or worse, reverse, my explicit !vote expressed at the same time I indicated that the proposed target was singularly bad among the possibilities that could be chosen were a move deemed necessary. It is well within the realm of ethical behavior to express clear opposition to any move whatsoever, but also indicate that were there to be a move some targets are better than others. Does the community really want to discourage open discussion in this way, by saying that if at any time during a discussion one expresses any opinion on the relative suitability of potential targets their explicit repeated opposition to any move is thereby invalidated? Agricolae (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. <uninvolved> This is a very close call, and I do see the validity in this move review nomination; however, as close as it was (I might have seen it as 3.5:2 rather than as 4:2 and perhaps closed it as no consensus), I see enough reason to support and endorse this RM closure as "closer's discretion". Paine Ellsworth, ed.put'r there23:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a borderline call. I think it likely that a consensus to move to Thomas Green (died 1506) will be found, but the RM was advertised as something quite different, and well into the discussion it looked like an obvious "Consensus to not move". If I read it correctly, the suggestion to move to Thomas Green (died 1506) came late (on the sixth day), after many participants and potential participants has passed over the listing. Although relisted, the relisting did not advertise the new proposed title. I also note that some opposers did not address the alternative title, and participation was small. I really think many like to avoid these awkward titles alluding to derived notability, and that a fresh proposal for the alternative title would garner more participation.
The closer's inclination to call a rough consensus for the alternative suggestion is a borderline Supervote, is a borderline BADNAC, and is the sort of thing that damages the reputation of the RM process as a well-working consensus-driven process. Others would have closed it differently. There is no rush. A conservative close and a fresh nomination is far less damaging than a creative close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and close as no consensus so that a new, proper move request can go through, and I'm heartbroken because I wonder how WP:RMCI could be made clearer to encompass a situation this complicated. Why not close as no consensus and relist with the new proposed title? I am mostly on board with SmokeyJoe's reasoning. RedSlash16:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.