- Woodstock (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)
The result was 9-9. The closing admin, BDD (talk · contribs) appears to not have correctly weighted the opinions, and just skimmed through the entries. Several of the oppositions were irrelevant, as they simply said, in a nutshell, "we shouldn't move this page because previous RMs failed," when this title had never been proposed before. However, the supports proved several good points as to why this move was a good idea. I suggest the reviewer analyse every opposition and support closely, before making a decision.Qxukhgiels (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:57, 22 January 2015
- Endorse close. The fact that you (the proposer of the move) disagree with an oppose comment doesn't make it irrelevant. Truthfully, none of the support votes were grounded in policy because the existence of other Woodstocks, no matter how many, doesn't mean the music festival can't be the primary topic; those supporting the move failed to make a strong case to prove the music festival isn't the primary topic. Plus, this was the third move request in the past three months (and fourth overall) that found a consensus the music festival is the primary topic. As an addendum, Qxukhgie twice tried to unilaterally revert the close before opening this [1] [2] and did not afford the closing admin any chance to discuss this. Given this, the actions described here and the repeated move attempts, I hope the closer of this puts in place a moritorium on future requests if the close is upheld. -- Calidum — Preceding undated comment added 22:04, 22 January 2015
- (edit conflict) Compare supports ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] (I'm not the only one who thinks the oppositions are irrelevant [11]) to oppositions [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qxukhgiels (talk • contribs) 22:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And what exactly is that supposed to prove? You disagree with the opposers. We get it. No need to clutter the page with links to prove it. Also, you didn't link to all the opposes for some reason. (I suspect we all know the reason.) -- Calidum 22:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
-
- If I'm disrupting Wikipedia to make a point by simply requesting we revisit a move request, what would you call a person who strikes other users' comments he disagrees with and reverts an admin's close? -- Calidum 22:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
-
- After doing so four times. I also only submitted those move requests once and didn't not badger everyone who disagreed with me (unlike you). Honestly, you bringing it up here is a red herring. If you have complaints about me, there are far better venues to do so. -- Calidum 22:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Endorse. The close clearly has no consensus. Both the "supports" and "opposes" had valid points about why this article should or should not remain at its current title; however, the default result for such a situation is "no consensus", which results in the article staying at its current title. Also, given this MRV nominator's participation in the move request referenced here, I would go as far to say that there is an WP:OWN violation present. Steel1943 (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)
- I don't see how this is the primary topic, as defined here. Traffic is not the only way we determine primary topics. The supports proved points. The reasons for the failure of the September and October moves is because we determined that "Woodstock" is the common name. Regardless of international fame, how is a festival that's actually named for the city where it took place the primary topic for a word that has its origins centuries earlier. Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
-
- @Steel1943:- Oh, so now you're accusing me of ownership- what's next? You obviously haven't checked the article's history. I've never even made one revert to the article, and this is the only edit I've ever made to the article, 2 June 2014. Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close: While there was plenty of participation in the debate, when boiled down to the basic principles there was little agreement and therefore no consensus. —EncMstr (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as closer. I must admit I'm taken aback by Qxukhgiels's behavior in this RM. His argument seems to hinge entirely on the suggestion that "per" arguments are invalid. That's simply not how these discussions work, nor should it be. --BDD (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Okay, so then let's just assume the majority of users agree with this title.Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close - Full disclosure: I opposed the move. Nevertheless the closure appears proper, per EncMstr and ironically, BDD. My thanks to Qxukhgiels for the alert on this discussion, however. Jusdafax 22:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Yes, it shows me the time. It's late afternoon to early evening in the US, while many people in the UK are probably getting ready for bed. --BDD (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close The support seems to have had slightly stronger arguments especially compared to some of the weaker opposes and while I have little personal preference, had I closed it I might have gone with the supporters. In my opinion, this much disagreement about if something is the primary topic is in itself a good argument that it is not. But any such consensus would be relatively week and a no consensus close is well within closer discretion, hence the endorse. PaleAqua (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close - I hope this is the last one. (Move request, I mean) Mlpearc (open channel) 23:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It is an easily defensible "no consensus", but the closing statement is very disappointingly brief. Good closers provide a little bit of wisdom. A deconstructive analysis of a discussion is not asked for, but a statement as to the main point(s) of contention preventing the participants from finding consensus is useful for subsequent discussion. A bland close provides no direction for dissatisfied people on both sides. Admittedly, I find it hard to summarise the discussion. Comments could include "participants talking past each other with conviction", or "participants hold very different opinions on the threshold of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and the guideline does not offer details on this". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close It would be good if the closer could expand a bit, but "no consensus to move" seems to sum up that discussion fairly accurately. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close. Disclosure: I did vote to oppose both recent moves. The purpose of WP:MR is to determine whether the close was reasonable, or whether it was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines. It was reasonable, and there's absolutely no case that it was inconsistent etc.. The problem is purely that the nom doesn't agree with the decision, which was clearly a difficult one, but now that it's made, get over it and move on. I also suggest a mild trout and a gentle warning that to repeatedly run to MR without a valid case would be disruption. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive868#User refactoring others' comments and edit warring and User talk:BDD#Woodstock. Andrewa (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Andrewa:- This is the first MR I've made.Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to expand a little on what I mean by difficult, I actually looked at closing it as no consensus myself, I think I would have been justified in doing that, but decided that it would be a clearer result if I cast a "vote" instead and left it for another admin to close. I'd spent quite a lot of time on it and expect that the eventual closer did the same. They have responded politely and very reasonably on their talk page to the challenge to the close (after the Move Review was raised but they explicitly said that didn't bother them... a gracious, helpful and constructive attitude). This move review doesn't seem even to have a borderline case. Patience is a virtue but we should gently set some limits on this waste of time, in my opinion. Andrewa (talk) 06:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - For full disclosure, I was a participant in the discussion. I do agree that it's always nicer when a request's closure has a more extensive rationale behind the result, but in this case most of the same arguments had been previously hashed out in the two recent very similar discussions, so I'm not even sure if there's much that was left to be said.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- To elaborate, I actually hate when !votes are nothing more than "we talked about this last time" when the new nomination notes either a change in the rationale or brings up new points that directly counter the previous discussion (especially when the previous request was a while back). But in this case, although the nomination argued it was an entirely new proposal, the bulk of the substance had already been addressed quite thoroughly in the recent discussions. The claims that this new discussion was on a completely separate topic are negated by the fact that, well, it wasn't.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure. Valid arguments from both sides. Not all of the oppose arguments were "we've discussed this before". No prejudice against making another move request, but I'm not going to do it. JIP | Talk 11:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it looks like I've failed to get my point through, so I'm raising my white flag. From a worldwide perspective, this does not appear to be the primary topic; I doubt it is for most of the US, too. Yes, I know, worldwide is just an essay, which means it can be completely ignored. But if worldwide didn't apply, then all of Wikipedia's articles would be written in American English. The event does appear to be called the "Woodstock festival" a lot, too, but not as much as "Woodstock." I've decided not to argue this anymore, even though I do believe this is a potential, and have decided to GTFO. I've never really mentioned this before, but aside from Asperger syndrome, (to summarise) I also have an extremely rare genetic disorder that causes me to have a cycle that causes lapses of intellectual level changes, particularly occurring every 3-4 months. The height of this cycle, which I am beginning to enter now, causes me to basically go berserk and later have seizures and a coma which lasts approximately 12-36 hours. This disorder is so rare that it has no name, and the exact cause is unknown. I used to think that it wasn't an issue as long as I stayed off Wikipedia at the height, but I'm starting to rethink that. Anyways, I don't wish to discuss it here, and if you have any questions, please ask on my talk page. I will just say that I try to stay off Wikipedia when I see the height coming, but sometimes it hits so fast and unexpectedly. Now, however, I'm going to take a serious Wikibreak and request a 72h block. Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Changed to Endorse close, see below. Note: I voted support in the request.
- @BDD: is a user I've seen quite a bit around the WP:RM space, and is someone I broadly respect. He has got to admin status through well reasoned and policy based closing and contribution across a range of project processes. I am therefore somewhat disappointed that he has closed this disucssion without any sort of explanation, and furthermore when this move review was opened, has continued not to explain his actions, but rather launch a bit of a broadside on the nominator, claiming poor motives. Looking purely at the !votes in the latest RM, I don't see a single "oppose" vote that actually explains in detail why the festival is the primary topic. Most votes are along the lines of "not this again", "didn't we do this WP:LASTTIME" etc. Conversely, at least one of the "support" votes, that by @In ictu oculi:, cites Google books with evidence that the festival is not primary. One or two votes (including my own) argue that even if it is the primary topic in North America, it is not worldwide.
- In terms of whether this can be closed as no consensus, I think it hinges entirely on whether the numerous citations to the previous vote can be counted or not. Ordinarily I would put those as weak arguments. WP:LASTTIME is clear on that issue. However, given that this is the third request in three months, I would give those more credence than usual. So, in summary, I believe a no consensus close is valid, just about, but I would much prefer it if the opposers gave valid reasons rather than trying to argue on procedural or last-time grounds. The reason why I'm Neutral rather than Endorse here, is because the close did not include any reasoning, and I can't endorse such a close on a contentious issue like this. If the closer gives us some reasoning as to the close, I can change my !vote here to Endorse. Thanks! — Amakuru (talk) 10:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the kind words, Amakuru. I perform a lot of closes (more at RfD lately), and I've simply found it more efficient to let the results speak for themselves most of the time. The great majority of my closes, and probably anyone's, aren't challenged, so a detailed closing statement for each just isn't a good use of an admin's time. I generally provide more detailed explanations upon request, and that I have not done so previously on this matter is to my discredit. I admit I got a bit overconfident looking at how this discussion was going and figured it was unnecessary. For the outcome, that's probably still true, but I should articulate my rationale:
- Ultimately, Wikipedia's consensus-based decisionmaking process means the status quo stands absent positive consensus to do otherwise. Sometimes that's a good thing, as it can provide stability; sometimes that's a bad thing, as it can create stagnation. The Woodstock festival has been the established primary topic for "Woodstock" for about 3.5 years. That's certainly not ancient, but it's definitely old enough to be considered a stable title. The nominator focused on the fact that many oppose voters simply referred to the last discussion. If the last discussion had taken place in 2011, I might have been more concerned by this. As it was, the issue had been discussed and no consensus found twice in the past three months. That's too much, and editors are well within their rights to drawn attention to those discussions. The better votes among those were those that cited specific arguments instead of the weaker "We just discussed this" sort of comments, but the latter type were only weak comments. They were not invalid. And while I don't like nitpicking or calling out individuals, some of the support arguments were quite weak as well. (I hope you can see this for yourself; please don't ask me to name names unless you really can't.) On balance, I couldn't point to either side as "winning" the argument, so no consensus it was.
- I hope this sheds some light on the matter. With Qxukhgiels's statement above and the effectively unanimous support here, I believe we can consider this discussion WP:WITHDRAWN, but I'm happy to explain my decision nonetheless. --BDD (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, thank you very much for the clarification, @BDD:. That explanation pretty much concurs with the line of reasoning I was employing, so I'm happy to endorse the close now. I take your point on not divesting too much time with an explanation on "clear cut" closes, and providing a more thorough explanation in the move review, if any, that seems a good system to use. Thanks! — Amakuru (talk) 11:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I still fail to see how opposition to the move constitutes building an encycolpaedia but the issue is of no significant importance to me. I don't live in a town called Woodstock. GregKaye 14:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrewa I was under the impression that move reviews were not just a matter of a !Vote. GregKaye 08:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- GregKaye, you were quite correct AFAIK. And so are RM discussions, which is probably more to the point. The closer is supposed to take into account not just the "votes" but also the arguments. I hope there's nothing I've said that led you to to doubt this, and if so perhaps I've said it badly. Andrewa (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
