Draft:Jassim bin Hamad Al Thani – Self-vacated and reverted move. Realized my rationale was sloppy and it needed more input. But the draftification poses problems in relisting; feel free to technically fix the nomination when it ends up back in article space. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 13:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
In the move discussion I added many arguments, explanations and more than 50 sources that the name Jassim bin Hamad Al Thani in international media has referred to different people and caused confusion so that this name doesn't follow WP:PRECISION: unambiguously define the topical scope of the article. The closer didn't respond. Malia Green (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. A consensus to move (to undo a bold move) was reached among participants, and the closer correctly found so. The discussion was reasonably well-attended and thorough enough not to require further input.Relist per below discussion.—Alalch E. 15:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the discussion was not well attended: Only the proposer of the discussion, two authors with no own arguments other than "per nom", and me. My first reply was only answered by DeCausa who violated WP:TALKO and collapsed arguments with more than 20 of my sources cited. My second reply went unanswered and then the discussion with much text and more than 50 sources cited was decided and closed by Mellohi! in less than 120 seconds. I don't think you can read and close a discussion like this in such a short time. I changed the name because the old name Jassim bin Hamad Al Thani didn't follow WP:PRECISION and I also gave many sources that there was a lot of confusion. Malia Green (talk) 12:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One sympathises with the closer of such a discussion. There was a nomination, then a series of !votes agreeing with the nominator, and then a detailed counterargument with many links. Nobody engaged with the substantive counterargument (which was Malia Green's second post in the debate) or even responded to it, so I would not agree that there was consensus to move. There are arguments and evidence that the community hasn't considered. If I had been the closer, I would have relisted.—S MarshallT/C 07:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the long reply was not a substantive counterargument, in a policy-relevant sense, to how the name is a WP:COMMONNAME, despite careless news outlets occasionally mixing people up, which is to be expected, and participants had coalesced around this argument. When sources use the same name for two different things, it doesn't mean that this not the common name for either of those things, what matters is whether each of those things is called by a single common name. WP:MIDDLE suggests "use the most common format of a name used in reliable sources"; WP:NCPDAB suggests using parenthesized disambiguators in case of ambiguity, not such long name formats to the point where it's doubtful whether the name is even recognizable. —Alalch E. 12:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alphabet soup aside, the nominator here does make an arguable point, doesn't she.—S MarshallT/C 13:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand her reasoning and it was a good effort, but it didn't exactly propel the RM forward. Maybe have a discussion about all of the ostensibly ambiguous Al Thanis to harmonize the name length and review need for disambiguation, instead of moving to Jassim bin Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani. Am I being bad when I think like this? —Alalch E. 13:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're being bad, no. But I feel the nominator's reasoned arguments make a case that hasn't been answered, which means the community hasn't finished thinking about this RM.—S MarshallT/C 14:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right after all. This 11-day old MR is somewhat stalling out, and could use more input, but then some extra input could be added to the RM. —Alalch E. 14:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Closer comment My closure was an attempt to be procedural; I was treating it as a contested undiscussed move. I had expected a new RM to continue the discussion but it seems to have rubbed Malia off the wrong way. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had hoped that you didn't close with this logic. This was a slightly atypical process in the sense that a bold move (that could have more easily been challenged through reversal rather than an RM, putting the burden on the editor who wants to move to start an RM) was challenged immediately with an RM. Not so atypical to need any type of procedural anything as a remedy. If one doesn't actually assess consensus for the proposed name (the one to the right, not the one to the left) and only checks the RM against the binary logic of "bold move is validated / bold move is contested", one preselects a slightly anomalous set of outcomes: If a bold move is validated, the page is not moved—that's fine. But if the bold move is contested, the page is moved (to the stable title) ... but then we may very well miss out on an important thing: is there or is there not consensus for the stable title? The bold move can be contested but the stable title can be pretty bad and also not have received much support, and there may never have been explicit consensus behind it, but recording a simple "moved" strongly suggests that there is explicit consensus behind the stable title, potentially distorting the image of the decision making process, which may negatively affect future proposals. Also, more extremely, if one only narrowly looks at whether the bold move target is contested it may even be that there is rough consensus behind this name—while it is contested (by definition)—and despite there being rough consensus, the name may still revert back, so in that case consensus won't be respected. So, in my view, this isn't "procedural", it's just the wrong approach to determining consensus. (At the same time, coincidentally, I rather agree with the outcome as if it had been based on an actual determination of consensus [but yes, relisting should be fine].) —Alalch E. 21:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Nom makes a good case to dispel ambiguity in the current title, which seems to have an obvious need for more precision. Assume this means the draft would be moved to Draft:Jassim bin Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, while the needy article continues to "incubate"? P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there 05:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The RM was uncontested and so the move is warranted by WP:RMNOMIN: If no one has objected, go ahead and perform the move as requested unless it is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guidelines or policy. The current title is misspelled and the proposed title is clear WP:COMMONNAME, so the guidelines warrant the move. The closer referred to a previous move request closed as “no consensus,” which is not a valid rationale to not move. —MichaelZ. 06:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OverturnRelist - takes a lot of gall to close an unopposed move request as no consensus. That's a first for me. If you think it's inconsistent with other titles, the place to make that argument would be in the discussion. RedSlash 18:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. The move in question was rejected (with others) under a no-consensus close just a month previously which was quite well attended. Therefore a finding of no consensus is entirely defensible. However, since this only ran for a week, with no other participation, it would have been sensible to relist it. It would also be polite, albeit not mandatory, to notify everyone who voted at the last discussion. — Amakuru (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, actually--relisting makes the most sense. RedSlash 18:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per above. —Alalch E. 14:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The argument of the Oppose side was essentially an appeal to tradition fallacy: TITLECHANGES only applies to when "there is no good reason to change it", but the Support side gave policy-based (ie. good) reasons. CONSISTENT was also not very good since it explicitly excludes disambiguation (not to mention unnecessary disambiguation, as was the case here). The last Oppose vote, which says that "These articles need to be distinguished", makes no sense. On the other hand, there was no dispute that the proposed title is the common name, and that it is more concise. The Support side thus made the best policy-based argument, and enjoyed a slight numerical majority, which results in a rough consensus to move. Several of the titles were also shown to be inaccurate.
The closing statement is also incorrect in implying that policies can be applied selectively in accordance with the participants' wishes, rather than be the standard with which to judge each vote. Avilich (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (involved) Editors can't argue TITLECHANGES when a policy-compliant reason to change the title has been made; if interpreted as being always applicable it would allow editors to stonewall changes when there is no good reason to maintain the status quo. BilledMammal (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as closer, but happy to relist. The previous RM isn't too far in the past that it should be entirely discarded. There wasn't any consensus in the previous RM, and I felt that the "slight numerical majority" Avilich mentions wasn't enough to depart from that. I'm happy to resist it for greater participation, of course, although preferably we shouldn't be spending all of our time on an RM merry-go-round. Sceptre (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, your close was reasonable, but there were really good arguments in favor of the move. I would relist it if I were you; it's an interesting case for sure and there's a lot of possible arguments left to explore, and a lot of good points made by supporters that weren't really answered. But I don't think you were "out of line" at all. RedSlash 19:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I did offer the option of relisting on my talk page, but Avilich chose MRV instead; presumably they thought there was a definite consensus to move already. Now there’s a MRV going on, I don’t really want to make it moot by doing it unilaterally! Sceptre (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The close was entirely reasonable, given that policy arguments of consistency were made and previous RMs had also not found consensus. — Amakuru (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than repeat the arguments uncritically, care to point out how consistency is a policy based argument since it explicitly excludes disambiguated and above all incorrect (1908, 1916 and 1920) titles? Avilich (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is move review, not a reopening or rehashing of the RM itself. It's not my place to come up with arguments that weren't made in the discussions. A good number of editors felt that consistency was important here, and consistency is a policy as part of WP:AT, while the counter-arguments did not sufficiently rebut that for a closer to reasonably declare a consensus to move. That's it. — Amakuru (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. <uninvolved> To relist would have been a borderline call in this case, because there was barely enough participation. The decision then was reasonable enough. As for the inconsistent title inaccuracies, perhaps it would be better to handle them separately from the other titles? Obviously, mixing them together tends to result in ambiguity and "no consensus". P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there 16:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. (uninvolved) I would probably have relisted, but not doing so was not unreasonable especially as identical arguments also failed to reach a consensus in a better-attended discussion about 9 months previously. Given that even supporters of the move agreed nothing had changed, it would require a much stronger level of support than was present in this discussion for there to be a consensus in favour of the move. At this point I think its clear that this set of arguments will not result in a consensus and if there is still appetite to move the pages then different ones will need to be presented. Thryduulf (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
First of all, the nomination, support votes and close were based on a false premise, that Confait identified as a "trans woman". This, as I pointed out, was based only on an unsourced edit that was added to the article a few years ago. Almost no reliable source refers to Confait as a trans woman, and those that do are modern works that mostly come at the subject from a specific point of view. At the time, the term "homosexual transvestite" was used, but this cannot automatically be assumed to mean "trans woman". Not every cross-dresser even today identifies as trans (see Grayson Perry and Thomas Neuwirth, both of whom use female names and personas when wearing female clothes as Confait did, for particularly well-known examples). This is purely a case of putting a 21st-century interpretation on and applying 21st-century assumptions to the life of someone who died fifty years ago. The nominator has apparently taken the edit at face value and the supporting votes have apparently followed them ("per nom"). Secondly, this is not an obscure case. It is a well-known murder case in the annals of British criminal history, covered in many sources. The victim is almost always referred to in these sources as Maxwell Confait. To change the title of the article based on modern sensibilities and insisting that all that matters is MOS:GENDERID (even when there is no evidence that this even applies) is going fully against WP:COMMONNAME and not helping readers in any way. It is not Wikipedia's job to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or to revise or interpret history but only to record the facts as they were and as they have been reported in reliable sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as closer: the question is simple – does MOS:GENDERID apply to Confait? Well, GENDERID applies to "any person whose gender might be questioned", whether they identify as trans or not. A majority of editors in the discussion agreed that MOS:GENDERID applies to Confait, and the minority didn't actually provide anything substantive that disproves the word might. From that, the rest flows naturally. COMMONNAME allows for exceptions where the "most common name has problems"; the long-standing precedent on Wikipedia is that, for people whom GENDERID applies to, their preferred name is the one we go with. Nobody argued that Confait did not prefer to be referred to as "Michelle". Finally, I must express my disappointment that WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is being used once again as a snarl word; RGW applies to disruptive editing, not to the community's general desire to treat sensitive issues, well, sensitively. Sceptre (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, RGW does not just apply to disruptive editing. It applies to any editing that may be seen as tendentious. That, I should have thought, is made quite clear by the title of the essay: Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse outcome (involved). It is clear that Sceptre has very strong views on gender identity and related topics - there is nothing wrong with this in and of itself (I too have strong views) - and sometimes they let their views get in between them and (the appearance of) neutrality. I think this is another occasion where this comes into play - their comments on their talk page give the impression that they are not neutral (whether they are or not, the appearance of neutrality is as important as neutrality itself) so they should not have been the one to close this discussion, and should also not be closing other contested discussions in the topic area. Rather they should have contributed to the discussion with the full rebuttal of the contrary arguments they have made here and on their talk page. However, having said all that, on this occasion I believe that the right outcome has been reached, for basically the reasons they cite - whether Confait was or was not trans is irrelevant, what matters is that their gender "might be questioned" and that they have a clearly preferred name. That Confait's gender might be questioned is unarguable. The evidence presented in the article is that their preferred name was Michelle and nobody has presented any evidence that suggests otherwise. Thryduulf (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your “per nom” of the weak nomination, no source evidence cited, arguing their perception of a negative, is the sort of perfunctory !vote that should not be given weight. It suggests to me that you think the case is obvious, obvious beyond needing explanation. The late detailed “oppose” !votes prove that wrong. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that the case should not need explanation, because the nom was (obviously to me) correct. I was evidently wrong that it was obvious, but I didn't see that before the discussion was closed. The reasons why it is correct have been subsequently explained - MOS:GENDERID unquestionably applies to Confait, and there is no evidence of dispute about what their preferred name was. I didn't see the opposing comments before the discussion closed, but as has been subsequently demonstrated they have fundamentally misunderstood the policy. As I explicitly said, Sceptre should have presented their refutation in the discussion not after closing it, but given that the only policy-compliant outcome has been reached I see no benefit in reopening or relisting the discussion. This is why I explicitly endorsed only the outcome. Thryduulf (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The funny thing is, I've been criticised at MRV before for providing details in my closes; seems like sometimes you can't win :P. But, yeah, I closed it without comment because it seemed obvious to me that I didn't need to comment further: MOS:GENDERID obviously applies to Confait; it's not under dispute that they preferred to be referred to as Michelle (which is agreed upon in most RSes regardless of how they describe Confait); and the clear majority of the participants that agreed on those point. It honestly seemed open-and-shut to me. I imagine if it had been closed the other way, we'd be here complaining about SUPERVOTEs and the like. Sceptre (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well there was certainly no way it could have been closed as "not moved", but "no consensus" and "relist" would not have been egregiously wrong (no consensus without a relisting would not have been a beneficial outcome though). Generally, if it is likely that if you explained your closure it could be regarded as a supervote by a neutral party then you should not be closing a discussion you should be participating in it. This particularly includes feeling the need to refer to sources, etc. not brought up by anybody in the discussion. If you don't know whether your closing comments would be regarded as a supervote, then present your comments as an argument for one or other position in the discussion and leave closing it to someone else. I'm not sure you've grasped that I am not endorsing your closure of this discussion, even though the outcome was correct. Thryduulf (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think all of “moved”, “no consensus” and “not moved” would have been wrong. Six people joined in unanimity, then two made detailed counter arguments, that marks the end of the beginning of the discussion, not the end. A response to the dissent is required. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you can say "no consensus" would have been wrong in the same way that "not moved" would have been wrong, as it wouldn't have been inappropriate if relisting failed to generate more input, but that is a minor issue. The response to the dissent should have been provided in the discussion, yes, which is why I'm not endorsing the close. However it has been provided after the discussion so it's clear the right outcome was reached so per WP:NOTBURO I don't see a need to reopen the discussion just to provide all the same evidence again in a different place to reach the same result. Thryduulf (talk) 09:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What "evidence" would that be, precisely? And what "discussion"? A brief nomination based on an unsourced edit followed by a load of "per nom" support votes with no expansion? The only two editors who provided any sort of evidence were ignored in the close and the RM was not left open long enough for any sort of further discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you are asking "what evidence?" after having been provided evidence on this page and on Sceptre's talk page then I am unsure whether you are participating here in good faith. Have you even looked at the links provided? This evidence was not presented in the RM (and I have not claimed it was, only that it should have been) but this does not mean it does not exist. The close was wrong but the outcome was right - all the evidence available in the article and presented since makes the only two relevant factors unarguable: Not only might Confait's gender be questioned it has been (reliable sources disagree about their gender identity - I can't think of how much clearer it can get) and that their preferred name was Michelle (every single source that mentions the name makes that clear). Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure whether you are participating here in good faith. A clearly unacceptable and unprovoked comment. You should know better. I was obviously referring to the RM "discussion" and its closure, which is what we're here to discuss. It is clearly not in the spirit of Wikipedia for someone to close an RM discussion and then produce further "evidence" for that closure themselves in a far less open forum (their talkpage and/or a move review). Closure is supposed to be neutral and uninvolved following full discussion. If the nomination is challenged and good reasons are provided and not refuted then closing the RM without comment without even a relist is clearly a bit odd. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once again I am not disputing this was a bad close. However I do take exception to your characterisation of the subsequent discussions - evidence presented at the wrong time in the wrong place is still evidence, even if it doesn't support your position. Thryduulf (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence on the closers talk page or an MR page is not a substitute for evidence on the article talk page. It needs to be relisted on the talk page, evidence processed on the talk page, not as bureaucracy, but for putting the discussion and records in the right place, for the benefit of the article editors and future talk page readers. This could all have happened promptly, and still could, if only the closer weren’t so stubborn and reverted their disputed close, as every NAC-er should. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (uninvolved). No explanation in the closing statement. No evidence that the subject preferred the proposed name. No evidence that closer weighed the arguments. This looks like a super vote based on the unsubstantiated assumption that the subject used Michelle. I’ll also say that getting so many closures in review should give any closer pause. —В²C☎ 00:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "unsubstantiated assumption that the subject used Michelle", I don't have time to determine which of these sources is the most reliable and to add to the article, but 2 minutes on google found [1], [2], [3] (p124), [4], [5], [6], [7]. Given that some of these sources use he/him and others use she/her and some describe them as transgender mean is more evidence that they are someone whose gender might be questioned. Thryduulf (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said to Necrothesp on my talk page, I've got a suspicion that the "might be questioned" part of GENDERID is there to prevent rules-lawyering when it came to gender-non-conforming people in the late 20th century. Certainly, Confait – a mixed-race sex worker who cross-dressed – is in the category of people where it's impossible to know definitively – either way – how they would have identified in 2023 terms. Hence, they fall under GENDERID, and we follow how they referred to themselves where we can. Sceptre (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that almost all those sources refer to Confait primarily as Maxwell. Nobody is disputing that Confait used the name Michelle, just as Grayson Perry uses the name Claire. In addition, given Confait was a sex worker, the female persona may have appealed to clients. But do we actually have any evidence that Michelle was Confait's preferred persona in everyday life? There are existing photographs in both male and female clothes. Given all this, I do not think there is any good reason to overrule WP:COMMONNAME. And it clearly is most certainly the common name; I'm not sure anyone would (or could) challenge that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once again I have to point out that all the reliable and unreliable sources presented here and on Sceptre's talk page that speak one way or the other about the name Michelle state that this is how they were known to friends and/or in the community. Not a single one speaks of it as a work name, an alter-ego, or anything of the sort - they went by "Michelle" except for some legal purposes, likely because that was not something that was easy (or in most cases necessary) to do at the time. You need to provide evidence that there is some reason not to follow GENDERID given that unequivocally applies and explicitly overrules COMMONNAME. Thryduulf (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How other people refer to someone is irrelevant to GENDERID; in cases where GENDERID applies (and it clearly does apply in Confait's case), then we go with the subject's preferred name, not anybody else's. That's the long-standing consensus on Wikipedia. Sceptre (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, let me get this straight. You provide "evidence", I point out the holes in it, and you say "well, it doesn't matter anyway". Sounds like nothing is going to sway you from the decision you've made. But, with all due respect, I must also say that it doesn't really sound like you're altogether neutral on this subject and therefore, as others have suggested, it probably wasn't a great RM for you to close. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (relist, ping all participants, minimum another seven days). <uninvolved> Relist is required due to the early rush of perfunctory “support” !votes that do not respond in any way to the detail later “oppose” !votes. Consensus requires consideration and response to opposing views, it cannot work from a contested blind vote. The nomination was weak, posing the question not making the case, so implied “per nom” doesn’t work. I suspect the closer cares too much about these questions to be called impartial, and they should vote and with more detail. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse <uninvolved> per Thryduulf's extremely compelling arguments. A "chain of evidence" is still evidence. It is overly bureaucratic and rather nitpicky to demand that all evidence should be directly on the talk page of the requested move. Editors who want to follow the chain of events will begin with the RM. Then when they go to the MRV, they will (hopefully) have at the top a link to the discussion on the closer's talk page. There is no reason to think that a closer, who is being questioned on their talk page and asked to give an explanation for their decision, would or should omit key facts in evidence just because those facts were not presented in the RM. What a gator's cousin!P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there 05:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree. MRV is for discussion the propriety of the close, or the process as a whole, it is not an extension of an RM. MRV is not RM2, it is not for relitigating the RM, continuing the litigation, or for correcting the litigation. MRV is for reviewing the close as it stood when closed.
Closer talk page discussions are for resolving confusion, getting explanations, or prompting the closer to revert or alter their close, before formal review.
Ordinary editors, typically the IP editor, must never be assumed to be ready to skim through the arcane culture of user_talk or MRV pages.
The close as it stood is an obvious bad close. Participants assumptions of their obvious are accepted to have been faulty. The late new arguments, with detail far exceeding the nomination and “per nom” pile-ons, means that the early !voters need to be called back. Nothing here is an acceptable substitute to that. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting your tendency to read things in my words that I never wrote. I never wrote nor implied that MRV was anything else but what you described. My chief concern is, for example, your coming to my talk page to ask for an explanation of my closure, and I have since found a community consensus to support my closure, but oh holy hell if I cite that policy since it wasn't included in the RM. So now we have a badnac supervoting after the fact? I don't think so. Nor should anybody else think so. This RM was closed reasonably, and I would have closed it exactly the same way Sceptre did. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there 19:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"This RM was closed reasonably"? That's a hard divergence there. It was not a reasonable close. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to disagree, SmokeyJoe, because while opposition was fairly strong, support for the page move was fairly overwhelming. The closure was perhaps a little too terse; however, it was imho a reasonable decision. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there 10:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I have stated several times, the nomination was based on a false premise and the support voters supported that false premise without further comment, presumably because they believed it to to be true without doing any further digging. When more detailed oppose votes were provided the closer neither took them into consideration nor allowed the further time to discuss them that obviously should have been allowed. "Overwhelming" support based on a clearly false premise is no support at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, what is the false premise we're all working on? GENDERID obviously applies to Confait, and RSes are clear that they preferred to be called Michelle. Any other consideration is ultimately irrelevant. COMMONNAME explicitly allows for article titles to deviate from the most commonly used name if there are problems; the long-standing and constantly reiterated consensus on the project is that where GENDERID applies, the least problematic course of action is to go with how the subject preferred to be referred to.
If there's any false premise here, it's the idea that Confait is comparable to Grayson Perry or Thomas Neuwirth, as GENDERID doesn't apply to either of them; there is no question that they're both cisgender men. Confait is much closer to Sylvia Rivera and Marsha P. Johnson; indeed, one of the sources I posted on my talk page actually talks about how the transgender community of NYC in the early 2000s listed Confait directly after Johnson in a list of murdered trans sex workers they were eulogising.
To show that GENDERID doesn't apply in Confait's case, you either have to show that their gender isn't in question, or that they didn't prefer to be known as Michelle. You've still not done either of those. Sceptre (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Continually alleging that Confait was trans (or that others alleged that Confait was trans) doesn't make it true. It is also blatantly ridiculous, as I have also pointed out, to use a name for this article on a well-known murder case that has never been used in reliable sources for that murder case. That would be taking GENDERID to extremes and going against all common sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like you're getting into WP:IDHT territory here. It's up for debate whether Confait was trans – nobody is arguing definitively either way! – but it must be blindingly clear that there is enough ambiguity, both to a layman and in reliable sources, on the point. Sceptre (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not start accusing an experienced editor who is clearly acting in good faith of disruptive editing. That is very definitely not acceptable. IDHT says: Sometimes, editors perpetuate disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. You must surely realise from contributions from other editors here that your point of view has not achieved consensus. Not even close. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp the IDHT is related to continuing to comment on whether or not Confait was trans when, with nearly every comment, it has been pointed out to you that this is irrelevant and nobody is debating that (most explicitly in Sceptre's most recent comment in this thread). I don't have time to comment further now, or to refute (again) your arguments (although I hope to later, the non-Wikipedia things have not allowed me much time here for a few days have not yet passed) but I could not let this go unanswered. Thryduulf (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, you and Sceptre (who should clearly not have closed this RM as they are very clearly not neutral on this subject) seem very keen on "pointing it out". However, you are not the final arbiters. Others very obviously do not agree with your "pointing out". As I have said, do not attempt to close down debate by suggesting that an editor is guilty of disruptive editing when they are very obviously not. It really is not acceptable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except you are guilty of not listening regarding some (but not all) aspects of the arguments presented. When someone quotes the exact wording of the relevant policy/guideline that shows in black and white that your argument is based on a misunderstanding (at best) and you continue to make the same argument based on that same misunderstanding multiple times, that is very much I didn't hear that.
I know it would suit your argument better if GENDERID only applied to living people who are definitely transgender, but it doesn't. It explicitly applies to anyone whose gender "might be questioned". Given that there are multiple reliable sources that question Confait's gender it is unarguable that it applies to them, whether they were or were not transgender. It can be discussed what their preferred name was, whether that is or is not the common name and if it isn't whether there is a reason GEDNERID should be overriden by COMMONNAME but you cannot continue to argue in good faith that GENDERID does not apply. In this case the sources that speak to their preferred name (as opposed to what name the legal system used, which is not the same thing) are clear that they preferred the name Michelle, the COMMONNAME is not as clear cut as you make out (given all recent sources presented use both names) and there has still been no reason given why a name other than the one they preferred should be used.
I do agree with you that Sceptre should not have closed this (and once again have to point out that I've said this repeatedly, but seemingly haven't been heard) but then the only person who seems to think otherwise is Sceptre themselves. However that does not mean that the outcome was wrong. Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sceptre should not have closed it. Sceptre has a miscalibration in their judgement of when and whether to close. An undisciplined closer undermines the integrity of the RM process. Their close needs to be overturned. How it is reclosed, or later closed, is for another, an uninvolved impartial closer, and as MRV should not rehash RM arguments, MRV should not direct how it gets closed, and I refuse to comment on whether the outcome was right. Comments on whether the outcome was right are misdirection to the question at hand. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Gentle reminders: WP:RMCI#Determining consensus sez, "...and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions." (noted that it does not say, "...unless that community consensus was not brought up in the move request.") WP:MRV#Commenting in a move review guides us, "The closer of the page move under discussion should feel free to provide additional rationale as to why they closed the RM in the manner they did and why they believe the close followed the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI." P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there 20:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist (uninvolved). Post-closure, to justify the outcome, editors have advanced a number of significant new pieces of evidence and points of policy interpretation, going beyond the contents of the RM discussion. This includes the closer's argument, e.g. highlighting certain sources and close-reading "might". Now that they have made these arguments, editors must be given the opportunity to respond and to evaluate which arguments they think are persuasive. The proper place is in the RM itself. Adumbrativus (talk) 08:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (involved). In addition to the arguments I made during the RM which were not properly considered by the closer, I see now that MOS:DEADNAME (second paragraph) only applies to living transgender and non-binary persons. It does not apply to dead people, nor people who prefer a different name for other reasons. MOS:GENDERID (first paragraph), which the close relies on, refers to the gendered words we use to describe an individual, and not the name by which we refer to the individual. BilledMammal (talk) 07:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that names, in general, aren't gendered? That seems to be splitting hairs a bit too fine against common sense. Also, the second paragraph of MOS:DEADNAME talks about the inclusion of a deadname. Even if it applied to dead people – and I agree that it doesn't (although it seems a bit churlish to not take it under adequate advisement) – Confait was notable enough as Maxwell to justify inclusion in the article. Sceptre (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some are, some aren’t. Unless our policy is to use the preferred name of individuals whose gender might be questioned only if they have a gendered name, but otherwise use their common name, MOS:GENDERID doesn’t apply.
The examples provided also suggest that GENDERID does not apply to names. BilledMammal (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist (uninvolved). I don't see the consensus in a discussion that began with misapplying a policy (MOS:DEADNAME only mentions the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name), continued several perfunctory supports, and two well-argued opposes. And then, closed by an editor who has declared strong views on the topic, without an extended rationale. There are fair arguments for both names, but most of them have been put forward in this very discussions, not in the RM. No such user (talk) 09:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:DEADNAME applies to all transgender people, living or dead; you're reading the second paragraph (which talks about the inclusion of former names of living transgender people) as applying to the first (which talks about how we should generally talk about transgender people). Nobody is saying that the name "Maxwell" should be excised from the article. Even if the general principle only explicitly applied to living people, it would be rather churlish to say "well, they're dead, so their wishes on this very sensitive topic don't matter at all". Sceptre (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was careful enough to quote it, so you should have done the same. Here's the first paragraph: Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. But their "expressed self-identification" has been questioned, and the policy does not state that we have to use their (possibly) preferred name throughout. Your interpretation is controversial at best, since if it were broadly accepted "name" would be explicitly spelled out, wouldn't it? What we typically do in such cases (of a subject's unclear gender identity and name) is to work around the issue, e.g. refer to them by the surname and/or singular they in the article. But we cannot do that in the title, and the subject has not been known as "Michelle" to the wider public. No such user (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The part of the "gender self-identification" that is under dispute is their, well, gender identity, not how they generally expressed themselves! This is an issue that crops up every so often when we're talking about gender-non-conforming people from this period of history; how they identified then doesn't have a 1-to-1 correspondence with how they would identify now (in any way), so it takes a common-sense approach. With the amount of evidence that Confait preferred to be known as Michelle, and our general rule that we should refer to GNC people as they would prefer to be known as (either names, pronouns, gendered words), and the majority of people in the RM supporting that view, that's why I closed the RM the way I did. This is separate to questions of pronouns in the running text and the like; my view is that given the indeterminate nature of their gender identity, singular they isn't the worst idea in the world (and it prevents the really clunky writing that happens when people try to avoid using pronouns). Sceptre (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously care too much to be an impartial closer in these issues. You should be !voting. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist (uninvolved). The basis for moving the article in the original discussion was very weak, and enough good points have been brought in this review to justify a relisting for further discussion to take place. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist (uninvolved) per SmokeyJoe. Ignoring the merits for a moment, but a case of a RM with several quick pile-on votes in one direction, followed by substantial objections later in the process, is basically a classic case of something that should be relisted for more input to see if the community agrees with the later objections. SnowFire (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(uninvolved) Relist per SmokeyJoe. Premature. —Alalch E. 18:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
