Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 April

Edward IV (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

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

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)

• Closer's comment: I'll just repeat what I said on my talk page. The guideline is clear: article names of Medieval European monarchs should not include territorial designations unless disambiguation is required, which everyone agrees is not the case here. Consensus is based on the strength of arguments rooted in policies and guidelines, and the arguments of one side were clearly better rooted. It is obvious that some people do not like 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)

  What about the guideline on consistency? Deb (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  WP:CONSISTENT says that we don't disambiguate just because other similar articles need disambiguation and I'd note that NCROY was one of the exceptions to the rule of not being more precise than needed and this exception was changed though WP:PRECISE still appears to suggest it is. In any case this makes NCROY consistent with most other topics that aren't disambiguated unless needed. So the guideline was brought in line with most other topics so its not like its a bad close to ignore it when it was made consistent with others. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  The new name is consistent with Edward VI, Edward VII, and Edward VIII. But more to the point, consistency does not apply to disambiguation. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

  Another example of a bad closure. Deb (talk) 07:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, several of those who commented at that MR called it an excellent close, correctly applying WP:NOTAVOTE – which is why it was endorsed. The same applies in this instance. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• 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 closing instructions. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  Venue is everything. If you want to change the guideline, open an RfC at WT:NCROY (which can then be advertised at other venues, including WikiProjects, WP:VPOL, and WP:VPROP). HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  If we are just going to ignore the guidelines willy-nilly, why would we bother having them in the first place? HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  If guidelines must always be applied despite any objection, why bother having RMs?

  The answer of course is that guidelines are just that: guidelines, not policy. It’s right to apply them wherever it makes sense to do so, but not where it doesn’t, and discussion is how we find the line. The idea that a guideline automatically trumps all objections short-circuits that process and is not how we operate. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The answer to your questions is found at WP:IAR, a policy. MRV is not a place to rehash the RM nor is it a place to rehash the RfC that changed the guideline. Here at MRV only the closure of the move request that has been nominated above is the focus of attention. Said closure was reasonable and should be endorsed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 10:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

My query was not about rehashing, but asking about the weights you're assigning in your argument about assessing local vs. community consensus. Who do you think is the community? Who is local? A distant guideline recently changed by a narrow group of people should be given 100% weight, but RMs by a wider group (and 20+ years stability) are to be given 0% weight? Is there any point to RMs then? Or is this just kabuki theater? Why even have any human editors do closures? We could just program a machine program to do it. Blind machine reasoning would be no less enlightened than the closer's reasoning here. Walrasiad (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The difference seems clear enough to most editors: a community consensus is represented by a policy or guideline, a strong consensus that has been garnered over time as the result of long-standing edits, RfCs or other discussions. A local consensus is the result of a local discussion on a specific article's talk page, a consensus that must be strong indeed to overcome a community consensus. The "distant" guideline, which happens to be part of a very extended series of naming conventions, and which appears to apply directly to this naming issue (rather than being "distant"), represents just such a community consensus. And the participation in the RfC in question appears to have been a bit more than you have depicted with your "narrow group of people" observation. The outcome is unlikely to have changed even if you had found it and had entered your opinion before it ended. The rest of your questions, with a healthy amount of respect and esteem, are frankly beneath you and represent heartfelt frustration that is understandable, even if not agreed with by many editors. This issue is apparently still up for grabs, because we still see RMs going both ways. Don't know if that helps your stomach rumblings, but it appears that not all of the cards are as yet "in", so to speak. Your opinion, if a minority one, is not alone. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 09:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

A narrow RfC on a narrow guidelines page that very few people watch but ends up significantly affecting thousand of pages outside of it, which a lot of people watch. Who is the wider community exactly? Most of the opponents of this move did not participate in that RfC, and were not even aware it was happening. Yes it is distant. The proponents of that RfC were a small group of royalist afficionados, obsessed with kings, queens & princesses. They watch such guidelines. Most of us don't. This is not a "kings, queens & princesses" article, it's a "history" article, used by a much wider range of writers of history articles, who don't have any particular interest in kings, queens & princesses, and merely refer to them out of necessity. We trusted the norm that exists in historical writing, and the norm which has prevailed on Wikipedia for the past twenty years. This change came as a complete surprise, damaging history articles across the board, and had been duly resisted everywhere it has been tried to apply. Yet the peculiar opinion of a narrow obsessive clique of how to refer to their favorite crowned idiot overrules the much larger and much longer opinion of the wider community on significant articles of historical interest? That one obscure guideline instantly trumps all other concerns and overwhelming objections, including all other policy concerns? That's a rather poor weighting system. Walrasiad (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Specific guideline aside, all you have to show is including “of location” is most commonly used in RS when referring to the person. Nobody did that in the RM. —В²C ☎ 01:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Nobody has said that WP is perfect. Perhaps another RfC should be opened to revert the guideline change? In any case, as things stand right here in the present moment, this RM closure should be endorsed in accord with the guideline in its present state. Changing the guideline is not our focus here; endorsing a reasonable closure is. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• 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:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE, and the guideline was then updated accordingly. The oppose votes did not give any specific reason why that guideline should not apply in this individual case, but simply tried to refute the whole premise of the updated guideline. But an individual RM isn't the forum for that, a fresh RFC would be required to update the guideline. As such, the closer was entirely right to ignore those !votes per the Wikipedia version of WP:CONSENSUS which requires closers to view discussions through the lens of policy.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• Endorse (uninvolved) per my comments at WP:DfD. Mach61 03:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
• 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)

  Wikipedia:Of course it's voting. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  Of course. I am just responding to your claim that It is not acceptable to say there is a role, secondary or otherwise, to count votes. There is clearly a role for counting votes, as the essay demonstrates. Why else would we care about VOTESTACKing? HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  The essay is fairly emphatic about “weighted” counting, and the complexity is in the weighting. The phase “to count votes” implies a lack of appreciation of the importance of weighting, and even if they know this, it’s important to call out the bad phrase for the benefit of less experienced others. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse uninvolved. Any arguments at MR about an admin specifically being preferred because of more experience are hypocritical. Directly from WP:RMCI, the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is never sufficient reason to reverse a closure. The buttons one has doesn't make a good closer. The close is policy-aligned with current NCROY, and the closer correctly applied close procedures. Directly from WP:DISCARD, The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue., which was done. I do think that an elaborated rationale would have been beneficial, especially for utter shitfests like the NCROY RMs, which I saw from other closes by Compassionate made after this one. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Do you know the meanings of the words “specifically” and “mere” that you have quoted. It seems not. Part of the close is the closing statement, and the closer did not do a good enough job. No respected admin would close with that one-sided terse statement that reads like a Supervote and conveys no reflection of the other side of the discussion. There is more to closing a contested discussion that getting the result right. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Insinuating I don't know what words mean is rude and I ask that you not do that again. RM isn't like a VPP close; controversial RMs have been closed without a policy link even and upheld at MR. Sennecaster (Chat) 14:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Happy to talk about what you wrote, if you want to claim your meaning is different. No one is claiming it should be overturned merely because it’s an NAC.

  Admins being more experiences is definitely a correlation, but admins being vetted for wisdom in difficult closes is the point. This closer does not appear to be good enough to be trusted with contentious closes, like a typical NAC-er, and the terse closing statement is an example of a bad close, being a closing statement that does not reflected the discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  We're not going to agree or change each other's mind, so I acknowledge your view but politely and firmly disagree and will leave that as that on this discussion specifically. I'm happy to continue elsewhere, though. I would like to keep this MR solely about the specific close, since we seem to be disagreeing fundamentally about what makes a proper close. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  The majority of !votes did not mention “WP:SOVEREIGN”. One that did was in opposition. Many of the oppose !votes cited shortcuts to policy section, which nominally outrank WP:SOVEREIGN as a mere guideline. That makes the discussion contested and complicated, and the closers closing rationale that was only “per WP:SOVEREIGN” is patently inadequate as a summary. That makes it a BAD close (even if the result happens to be right), and them being a non admin makes it a BADNAC and means they really should read WP:NAC and be more conservative in choosing to try to help by closing discussions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn: (uninvolved here, but involved in another with closer). 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. This is clearly a disputed move, without consensus. Huwmanbeing's comments above summarize my thoughts.  // Timothy :: talk  04:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (involved; started RM): the guideline is clear, and per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS we can't just ignore the guideline because of who happens to turn up at a discussion. If you dislike the guideline, you can open an RfC to get it changed. IAR is for exceptions, not rewriting rules. There is no indication about how Edward IV and Edward V are different so as to require an exception. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  The guideline wasn’t ignored: its application was raised and thoroughly discussed. However, a consensus did not emerge that applying the guideline in this case would actually improve the titles, with policy-based rationales raised on both sides. As such, the concern here at MR is that the closure — specifically a three-word, non-admin closure in direct violation of WP:BADNAC — did not consider or fairly represent the outcome of the discussion, and seems like a supervote. Without a proper closure by an administrator I don’t see having any confidence in the result. ╠╣uw [talk] 15:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  You say a consensus did not emerge that applying the guideline in this case would actually improve the titles. Do you have any potential moves in which you think applying the guideline would actually improve the title? IAR is for exceptions, not rewriting guidelines established by broader community consensus. As for the closure, I agree it should have been done by an admin (and I hope this MR is closed by an admin). However, solely being a BADNAC is not a reason to overturn a close. There wasn't a lot to analyze: one side had the support of the guideline, the other argued that we should LOCALCONSENSUS that guideline out of existence. You don't need to write a dissertation to analyze the outcome of that discussion. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  MR isn’t the place to discuss other moves or our opinions of SOVEREIGN, only the appropriateness of the closure.

  Regarding guidelines, we seek to apply them wherever it makes sense to do so, but the idea that the existence of a guideline overrules all other titling considerations or objections, and is the only relevant consideration in RMs, is simply wrong. If it were so then RMs would become unnecessary and we could just mass-apply the guideline to every possible case via undiscussed moves and technical requests — but we don’t. RMs explicitly exist to solicit feedback on the appropriateness of requested moves, when viewed not just through the lens of a single guideline but in the wider context of all our policy obligations under WP:AT. This was not reflected in the closure.

  As for BADNAC, an almost entirely unexplained closure by a non-admin of a divided discussion on a controversial request which doesn’t even acknowledge many of the points that were raised or discussed strikes me as sufficient grounds to seek a closure by an admin. The NAC guidance exists for a reason, and as it stands I simply don’t see that we can have confidence in the appropriateness of the closure that was made. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

the idea that the existence of a guideline overrules all other titling considerations or objections, and is the only relevant consideration in RMs, is simply wrong.

One can easily agree with that as you wrote it, but that's not what happened. It was the idea that the existence of the community consensus behind a guideline overrules all other titling considerations or objections that are considered by the closer to be too weak to warrant WP:IAR, is simply not wrong. And coming from a place of closing many RMs that were contentious, some of which were reviewed here and most of which were endorsed, I have to applaud the closer for diving into this issue. He has gotten caught up in a very compelling and controversial debate that apparently started long before the RfC that gave the guideline a new direction. This particular eruption of Mt. Concise Titles has spewn gas and dust that often blocks the Sunlight of rational rebuttal. It's lava boldly covers up civility and sears and burns unsuspecting inexperienced editors. Just as this review might go either way, the issue itself has yet to be fully flushed out, and anything may as yet happen. On the level of local RMs, the issue has been going both ways, for example, see Talk:Charles XI of Sweden#Requested move 13 January 2024, a similar RM closed recently by editor Thryduulf as "no consensus" (therefore "not moved"). And of course there are others that resulted in page moves, such as this one and another one this month (May) did. Life is forever fascinating and anything...but...dull on this encyclopedia project, isn't it? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 12:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that one is a candidate for MR as well. At first glance it looks like a good close namely by taking into account the opinions of people in the discussion it doesn't take into account community consensus. I was going to wait and see what the consensus of these other MRs are before considering MR and if anyone else also has the same opinion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps a good call, I don't know. First glance yields a seasoned admin closer who apparently detected a really good IAR arg to ignore the guideline. If that RM is reviewed, I'd have to look at it more closely before rendering an opinion. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse (uninvolved). After weeks of languishing in the backlog without being addressed by any admins we should be thanking the NAC rather than admonishing them for closing this discussion. As to the closing statement, it’s concise. It’s obvious that they mean Support was based on SOVEREIGN and opposers were not policy-based (that wasn’t refuted); an accurate assessment. Anyway, they've clarified here as well as on their talk page, and brevity in the closing statement is no reason to reopen, much less overturn, and they’ve already explained their closing more in at least one subsequent close. —В²C ☎ 19:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn (involved). Opposition was actually policy-based, overwhelming and entirely ignored. It is poorly-conceived guideline change that is contradictory of policy. Cavalierly moved without careful nor balanced consideration of the policy at stake. There was no consensus for this move, nor did the mover claim to find any, nor addressed why policy should be ignored in this case. Walrasiad (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  Merely claiming COMMONNAME or RECOGNIZABILITY does not establish basis in policy. Not to re-argue here, but did you look at relevant ngrams? The notion that “Edward V” is not the COMMONNAME or does not meet the RECOGNIZABILITY threshold is baseless; it’s not a policy-based position. —В²C ☎ 20:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:COMMONAME and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY are policy. And it is not baseless. As someone who claims to be "uninvolved", it turns out you have opinions on the matter. The RM should be reopened to allow you to make your case there, and not here. Walrasiad (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

My opinion is we should title our articles based on policy. Of course COMMONNAME and RECOGNIZABILITY are policy. But arguing, say, San Francisco should be moved to Frisco “because COMMONNAME and RECOGNIZABILITY”, is not a policy-based argument. To be policy-based on those policies, one has to show their preferred answer is more commonly used in RS, like with ngrams (which show the opposite in this case, by a huge margin), and why their name meets the RECOGNIZABILITY threshold, but the other doesn’t. Opposition did none of that; it was not policy-based. — В²C ☎ 11:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Recognizability? Do a search for "Edward V" without "England", and see what comes up. It's not this guy. Anyway, that's not what is being discussed here. The closure is the topic, not your opinions on the proposed move. Walrasiad (talk)

What? Do a search for “London” without England. By your ”logic” London is not recognizable and needs disambiguation. Please. This is why opposition arguments were discounted. They were based in nonsense, not policy. —-В²C ☎ 01:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, plenty. At any rate, this is not the place to have this discussion. When the RM reopens, you can go argue it there. Walrasiad (talk) 03:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The RM is for presenting arguments supporting or opposing the move. This MR is about evaluating closer’s finding that support arguments were better based in policy. This MR, not a reopened RM, is therefore the appropriate forum for showing how policy cited by opposers didn’t actually support their position. Continuing to misinterpret RECOGNIZABILITY here in the MR is not helpful, except to reinforce closer’s point about their job: “to apply policy as it is, rather than as some editors wish it were”. — В²C ☎ 14:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)
• Overturn (uninvolved). The title was 2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus prior to a BOLD move on 2 April. The closer found consensus to remove the year but explicitly said "there was not" consensus to do anything else. Under WP:NOCON/WP:TITLECHANGES, the page clearly needs to go the "most recent stable title" (or, if you prefer, "the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub") minus the year—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)

  @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)

• 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:TITLECHANGES doesn't really apply, even though it's a strange one. However I don't see clear support for invoking WP:NOYEAR and would overturn the move to the originally suggested title. SportingFlyer T·C 23:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: 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 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)

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)

1 April: Article created

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

14 April: Article moved to "consulate"

Back-and-forth moves follow.

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

You missed a few relevant events:

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

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

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)

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)

As noted above, this supposed procedural "clarification" by Kashmiri here is factually wrong. WP:TITLECHANGES does apply here, and according to the "first non-stub version" stipulation therein, the stable default title in the event of no other consensus is 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)

• Move the building destroyed was the Counsulate as everyone can check by their own . The current title is wrong and misleading, moreover failing to comply with WP:PRECISE. Nicola Romani (talk) 07:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  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)

• 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 DamascusIranian 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)
• Overturn (uninvolved). Dylanvt boldly moved the page at 14:26, 2 April. Classicwiki disagreed with the move and was entitled to revert it per Wikipedia:Requested moves, after which Dylanvt could have opened a RM to reinstate the move. However, Classicwiki instead opened a RM to revert the move. Now we have no consensus to revert the move, no consensus to keep the present title, and (while there is consensus to remove the year) no consensus to just remove the year and keep the rest of the present title. Given the title is controversial, I think the cleanest sensible path forward is to wind the clock back to before 14:26, 2 April, restoring the original title, after which Dylanvt or anyone can start a new RM. As it happens, WP:TITLECHANGES says "default to the title the article had when the first major contribution after the article ceased to be a stub was made" – that was the original title. (I don't understand at all the arguments that 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)
• 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)
• 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)

Endorse close (involved) The closer correctly applied WP:NOTAVOTE and understood the consensus for WP:NOYEAR. Based on the edit history embassy seems to be the more stable article name. Both embassy and bombing are much more WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. Aquabluetesla (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

This was a no-consensus close, though, not a close based on policies like WP:PRECISE. You mention some non-procedural reasons for supporting the outcome, but they seem out of place in a move review, which is "not a do-over of the WP:RM discussion but is an opportunity to correct errors in the closing process" (WP:MR). XDanielx (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

• Question. < uninvolved > I'm perplexed how any editor here could possibly make an informed decision without first asking this question! What is the closer's reason for not moving to either 2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus per editor Amakuru above, or to Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus per the closer's perceived consensus to remove the year? This was not asked nor covered on the closer's talk page. As much as I would like to endorse the closure of an editor who has been on WP for coming up on twenty years next year, who became a sysop in 2006 and who is now a trusted and seasoned admin, I just cannot make an informed decision without first hearing why such an esteemed editor did not follow the Wikipedia policy. There must have been a good reason, a very good reason, to ignore this long-term community consensus. If no reason is forthcoming, I don't see how this closure could possibly be endorsed. Unless there is a really good WP:IAR behind this closure, it should be overturned, and the correct title, which in my opinion would be Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus, should become the article's title. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 16:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse per this discussion, which I had missed. The closer distinctly found "strong consensus" to not move the page back to the previous title and also agreement to remove the year. So I endorse this closure; the current title should remain so. I would ask only that the closer adjust the RM's closing statement to include this information for posterity. The closing admin has no problem with a fresh and immediate RM to resolve any further issues, so neither do I. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty sure that just means there was strong consensus not to go back to the title with the year. The closer specifically said here that "there was not" consensus to do anything other than change the year. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
      • And I'm pretty sure that the closer was clear when he wrote "...and consensus was strong that that name ('2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus') was not what the community wanted." This is the part that belongs in the closing statement to dispel any confusion. It's not just the date that was unwanted, but the entire old title. The closer went on, "I made the ruling to put the page at 'Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus', regardless of previous naming of the page." That to me means that the closer made a reasonable administrative decision, which should be endorsed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 03:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn (uninvolved) per WP:TITLECHANGES as explained by others here and at the preceding technical request. SilverLocust 💬 03:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Today (1982 TV program) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

Digital enhanced cordless telecommunications (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

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)

• 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)

  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)

  I don't believe that's a reason to overturn a lack of consensus, sorry. SportingFlyer T·C 03:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

  That doesn't make much sense. You seem to think that the arguments hold merit, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY (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)

Well, please let me try to show how sensible it is. This RM closure was a no-consensus decision. The longer one waits, the more likely one will build stronger arguments and successfully rename the article. If this RM were to be reopened, the liklihood is that it would still end in no consensus, so it would be better to wait and strengthen your rationale. There have been a few exceptions to this over the years, but not many. Sincerely hope this helps! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 04:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

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 (MOS:JARGON) or they cited a policy that actually supported my argument (MOS:ACROTITLE and WP:ARTSINGLE). PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Opposition to Chavismo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Reading Beans may have been unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion: NoonIcarus, a user recently topic banned for POV pushing, who has been engaged in some page-move wars and who has forced their own titling on the project proposed a move only three months after their past proposal was opposed. As the previous discussion laid out, "Opposition to Chavismo" is actually less precise because there is both "Chavismo" and "Madurismo". Making the comparison to Opposition to Vladimir Putin in Russia and the other categories are a false equivalencies since the opposition has spanned over two presidencies and has not been against just one individual. The Venezuelan opposition (its 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 content fork. The title Venezuelan opposition is more 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)

• 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)

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)

• Reopen (uninvolved): Whenever someone requests reopening a recent WP:RMNOMIN closure, the best practice is to reopen. Reopening is a better way to "help in establishing a consensus whether to move or not" (quoting the closer), since move review isn't a place for continuing the move discussion. And in light of Talk:Opposition to Chavismo#Requested move 22 November 2023 (which includes comments that would still appear to apply in opposition to the move even with edits to the article), this is not a good candidate for a WP:RMNOMIN closure as uncontested. (I will also note that the portion of the argument based on consistency with Spanish Wikipedia should have little weight since WP:CONSISTENT is not aimed at inter-language consistency.) SilverLocust 💬 22:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
• 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 closing instructions. Also would not be averse to reopening and relisting if MRV consensus deems it so. As it presently stands, though, this was (still) a good close! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 22:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC) 16:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  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)

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 WP:RMCI. It should be endorsed, and editors who snoozed and now think it's wrong should wait several months and then try to move it back. There was plenty of time to oppose and supply a policy-based argument. In terms of this particular closure, consensus has changed for the present and should be honored. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 23:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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. ymmv. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 02:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 00:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

A few points in reply:

(1) WP:SILENCE for two weeks isn't a stable consensus, just a "presumed" consensus. See, for example, 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)

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. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 02:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC) 16:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

• Reopen. (Uninvolved, though I closed an earlier RM on this article.) I'm normally a big proponent of WP:RMNOMIN, but in this case, the proposed move almost exactly duplicated an RM that was rejected by consensus just a few months ago. 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)
• 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)
• Comment. Please note that the nominator of this review has been blocked indefinitely. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 04:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  @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)

  Noting also that this RM was started a little over 3 months after the previous one. TarnishedPath^talk 02:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  A relist or reopen needs at least one person who will champion the new arguments. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  User:WMrapids consistently opposed the move. Do I misunderstand your point? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  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)

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

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  Ok. I support restoring the old title. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

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. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

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 ). As you know, RMCI includes an observation that successful re-requests generally take place at least 3 months after the previous one, but that is just a description of likelihood of success, not a procedural waiting period (however flexible) for a re-request to be a valid RM process. Re-requests are often quickly rejected by commenters and 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)

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)