Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2013 December

Haile Selassie (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

User:BDD did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because the result of this move "did not indicate a clear consensus", given that if you read the RM it is clear that 4 editors oppose and 4 editors support this is said this was "the most disgraceful closure I have seen in my 9+ yrs at wikipedia" by SqueakBox. It also resulted in a title that applies British protocol to Ethiopia, while not applying it to Spain and her monarch Juan Carlos I. All of this was explained and the only reason offered in favor of the move was an ngram, illegitimate per WP:SOURCECOUNTING a well as skewered, as noted by Til Eulenspiegel, in closing this requested move.Simfan34 (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Clearly a good close. The opposes were weaker and had no answer the fact that the name appears more commonly in the sources without the ordinal than with it. There's nothing wrong with an ngram as a gauge, nor with the hundreds or thousands of available sources for "Haile Selassie". RM closes have to weigh the strength of individual arguments and consider the project-wide consensus behind policies like WP:COMMONNAME along with the local consensus; the closer made the right call here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (no consensus). Supporters were focused on there being no HS II, opposers saying that dropping the ordinal in such cases is culture specific, and the two sides didn't engage on this dividing point.

  Cúchullain's !vote, which I guess was tie-splitting, cites WP:UCN which was argued to be equally met by both, and an ngram viewer which has biases, such as not discriminating between introductory use (appropriate for an article title) and subsequent use in the same document.

  Worst, the closing statement is inadequate for an affirmation of a strongly contested proposal. BDD, you need to take these more seriously. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your last statement is insulting. I'm sure BDD would have given a fuller explanation if he'd been asked before this was brought to move review, as it says right there in Step 1. And it goes without saying that RM needs all the help it can get.

For my part, I could also have given more evidence that "Haile Selassie" is the common name if the existing evidence was ever challenged, but it never was for over 10 days. In addition to the ngram, which shows a strong preference for "Haile Selassie", Srnec also gave these findings from a review of ACLS Humanities e-books, which was overwhelming and was also never challenged. Meanwhile, there's no indication that "Haile Selassie I" is more common, only that it's more "correct", which is debatable. And of course the majority of participants favored a move.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Re last statement: I have said to BDD before that he should give more explanation in his closes.

This close, Talk:Haile_Selassie#Requested_move "The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)", reminds me very much of a previous close, Talk:Deadmau5/Archive_1#Requested_move_1 "The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)", where on that occasion I requested a better closing explanation. [1], which, eventually he did.[2]. However, the better explanation for a decisive close on a contested discussion belongs in the closing statement.

I later, at Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves/Archive_25#Does_.22no_consensus_to_move.22_mean_.22consensus_to_not_move.22.3F, urged BDD to be more articulate in closing [3]. Today, I am thinking that he is slipping back to quick templated closes.

Why these should be taken more seriously? Because this is a situation of conflict between different classes of editor, and where one side feels it is not being listened to, and feels over-ridden, not taken seriously, this is a recipe for discord.

I declare being an authorist, meaning that I think the committed content-contributing authors of an article should be given more respect than drive by editors. Of all editors, content creators, copy-editors, stylists, and backroom workers, it is the first that should be first in terms of who gets supported.

Looking at the postions in the discussion, and noting each's count of edits to the article:

nom Charles Essie 0 edits

sup Srnec 0 edits

sup Imc 0 edits

sup Neljack 0 edits

sup -Cúchullain 0 edits

opp Til Eulenspiegel 251 edits

opp SqueakBox 248 edits

opp Simfan34 25 edits

crticial comment Gyrofrog 2 edits

it has a very distinct look of roving outsiders wandering in and out-voting the locals.

Worse, my reading of the discussion is that no one persuaded anyone else of anything, with everyone debating past each other. In this situation, I very much oppose rewarding one side over the other, and thus I read a clear "no consensus".

I read BDD as young and enthusiastic. I like him. If he feels insulted, I am surpised and disappointed, I think he is bigger than that. I have no regrets in supporting his adminship, and think he is overall and increasingly doing a good job. However, I want to make it clear to him that closing against the arguments is something to be done with more consideration, and that if he doesn't make more effort to explain to the loosing side then he risks them feeling offended. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• On documented use counts: It is to be expected that repeated use of the name not repeat the ordinal. For this reason, simply counting uses is flawed. It is titles, and first uses in the document that is important. For this reason, I think images of plaques ([1], [2]) and books is more informative. Notice how at [1], the obviously supported ordinalled title is not supported by a count of "Haile Selassie" versus "Haile Selassie I", how the ngram count method is flawed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a reasonable argument, although I partially responded to it during the move request. I wrote: In the ACLS Humanities E-Book collection, I get "Haile Selassie I" 13 times in 7 monographs and just "Haile Selassie" 150 times in 46 monographs. Rastafari: Roots and Ideology by Barry Chevannes prefers "Haile Selassie", using the numeral only once when referring to his coming to the throne (not the first mention). That shows that 39 out of 46 academic books that mention HS do not use the numeral even once.
  The real problem here is that Til and SqueakBox never presented serious arguments for their assertions. SB asserted that the ordinal had religious significance, but when I responded, The link SqueakBox provided says nothing about the importance of the ordinal in Rastafarianism. I have not read Dread, can SqueakBox quote a pertinent passage?, I got no response back. Til made claims about our policies, yet his claims are not to be found in WP:NCROY and he refused to quote the guideline when asked. Til also made assertions about Juan Carlos of Spain, but there have been three move requests of that article since 2010. The title has clear consensus even if I think it's the wrong one. Srnec (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "That shows that 39 out of 46 academic books that mention HS do not use the numeral even once." I failed to discern that from reading the discussion. That too is a reasonable argument. Ideally, a new independent participant would comment on how convincing it is. If BDD weren't on a wikibreak, I'd advise him to do a quick relist in the hope of new comments clarifying the discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I often don't include a summary when closing an RM if the reasoning seems obvious. I'm always willing to offer a fuller explanation when asked, which is expected before starting a move review. That step was skipped here.

In this case, 5 participants supported the move and 3 opposed, and the supporters presented evidence that the proposed name was more common; none was presented to the contrary. I don't see much value in a relist considering the discussion already ran for 18 days, with no new comment for 5. Again, this whole thing likely would have been nipped in the bud if the MR proposer hadn't skipped the first step.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Having reviewed the closer's explanation, I maintain that the close was poor, and that the discussion was a "no consensus" for the reasons I have already given - good arguments on both sides talking past each other, and the Ngrams are a clumsy tool.

• My reference to authorism is not to assert that the article's significant authors should be deferred to, but that the article authors have invested effort in the subject, that their opinion deserve special consideration (not deferral) and respect.

• The closer considers CONCISE and COMMONNAME to have won out. CONCISE was not mentioned in the discuss, and so on this point we have a supervote. COMMONNAME was used, as a Wikipedia:VAGUEWAVE, by the nom and two supporters, and rebuffed, challenged by Til Eulenspiegel 18:06, 10 December 2013 & 02:57, 15 December 2013, and with evidence by Gyrofrog 22:36, 11 December 2013.

• Simfan34 06:18, 18 December 2013 made a strong argument that was not responded to. The closer questioning whether it is largely tangential to Wikipedia naming policy is to supervote.

• Yes, supporters made good arguments, but they did not defeat good arguments from opposition. "No consensus", or "no consensus yet, proponents on both sides need to listen better", the close rewarded one side unfairly, and the closing statement was unacceptably brief, disrespectful to the opposers. (If the explanation given here were the closing statement, it would be a clearly a supervote.)

• Since reviewing this RM, I have seen that the ordinal use is favoured in other tertiary reference works, scholarly sources, and memorial plaques. How these weigh against Srnec's arguments is worthy of a continuation of the discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - no matter what partisans opposed to the Emperor's correct regnal name will say, this was an illegitimate close in favor of forcing British dynastic protocol on Ethiopia, but not on Spain Juan Carlos I for no rhyme or reason but purely political reasons, also the word "consensus" in English dictionaries means AGREEMENT which any fool who knows how to count should be able to see there is none, the only reason they are pretending to themselves there is "agreement" is because they are purposefully blinding themselves to the real opinion count solely for the sake of their unfounded bias. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn A close scrutiny of the comments make clear there were 4 editors in favour of the move and 4 opposed, that is not consensus and the default for no consensus is no change, nothing to do with the arguments put forward by either side, simply a complete lack of consensus♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were 5 editors supporting the move and 3 opposing, with one making !vote either way. And the strength of the arguments absolutely does matter.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the strength of the arguments does matter. And if you think the argument for dropping the I from the regnal name because some editors DONTLIKEIT, you've been duped, because those are some of the weakest arguments (skewered ngrams basically) I've ever seen for a contested close. It's ultimately political, since Spain is clearly an exception to this hegemonic rule of whimsy made up by some editors, and they cannot even come up with a half assed reason to explain why they think Ethiopian monarchs should be subjected to British regnal protocol on wikipedia and not Spanish ones. Because of this BIAS, I am so uncomfortable with leaving the article at the improper title just because a few editors WHO HAVE NEVER EVEN EDITED THE ARTICLE decided to gang up and invade and enforce their ignorant BIAS, that if the illegitimate move is NOT overturned, I am fully prepared to continue fighting this at the next level of arbitration, and indefinitely, until justice is restored. This is political harassment by gangs of hostile outsiders who are not here to edit the article, plain and simple. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn (No consensus) based on the discussion I can not see how this could have been closed as anything but no consensus. I agree with most of what SmokeyJoe says above, even if it was a bit strong. That said a customary step was skipped. Before coming here those contesting the close should have been asked BDD for a rational. BDD appears to be on vacation. I am assuming until Jan 3 was meant, even though the date added says Dec 3. PaleAqua (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn for the reasons I set forth in the initial request. --Simfan34 (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this response is from the nominator, not a new participant.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in opposition The idea that the usage without the ordinal is more common is quite ignorant of the relative authority of the sources used to come to that conclusion, that you cannot use a bunch of aggregate figures blindly. Britannica, the Ethiopian Crown Council, the American Presidency Project, and the United Nations all use the ordinal. Furthermore, if one wants to use blind number, there are 625,000 results on Google without the ordinal and 8,160,000 with it! A figure of dubious veracity, perplexing origin, and spurious relevance, but the idea that the usage without the ordinal was decisively predominant, in authoritative sources, is preposterous. Even more preposterous is the idea there was consensus on this idea! --Simfan34 (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to your nominating statement, you've already made another "comment in opposition" here. It's beginning to look like you're trying to pad the discussion with !votes. And can you please comment on why you skipped the step of discussing the issue with the closer before starting this move review?--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cuchullain:It's beginning to look like you're trying to focus on spurious allegations of "vote-padding" and procedural trip-ups rather than the total absence of consensus for the move and a logical justification thereof. There is no reason to delay, the closer knew what he/she was doing. In either case I've moved it under my original comment just in case, which I guarantee when you went around trying to count votes, had I not posted it you would not have factored me into the count. There are only two baseless accusations here 1) That the usage without the ordinal was more "common" and 2)There was a consensus on this to move the article. Let's stick to the matter at hand. --Simfan34 (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for moving your comments. Whether intentional or not, it's never good for editors to make multiple comments that look like !votes. I can assure you that closers always account for the nominator in the closing, and in move discussions, nominators are specifically asked not to add an additional !vote without clearly indicating they're the nominator, so it doesn't look like they're trying to stack the discussion their way.

As for contacting the closer, the point of the move review is that in your mind the closer didn't follow procedure properly, but then you neglected to follow the procedure in the review. Considering how much of everyone's time and energy this has taken, it's a fair point of criticism.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse

  I think User:Cuchullain sums up the situation well. The essence of the oppose arguments seems to be grounded in inaccuracies or in a misreading of policy. For example, looking at a few of the arguments made against the move:

  1. "Most people in fact do say "Haile Selassie the First"" (User:Til Eulenspiegel) - implies that WP:COMMONNAME requires us to take some sort of ear to the ground approach and determine what term the population at large use. In fact, the policy is simply to go with usage in reliable sources, and no evidence was offered that H.S. I is the common usage in those sources. The "support" camp do offer some evidence in the form of an ngram on book sources.
  2. "He isnt just a historical figure but a religious figure and the fact that as a religious figure he is known as Haile Selassie I (as can be demonstrated in secondary references)" (User:SqueakBox). Again, these secondary references are not provided, other than a BBC link which doesn't seem to offer much insight into the numeral, and the reference to the book Dread but with no clue for those of us who don't own the book as to what it says on the matter.
  3. "Juan Carlos I. This article cannot be moved if that one is allowed to remain, regardless of what wikipedians vote" (User:Til Eulenspiegel) - clearly this is not the case, and I think WP:OTHERSTUFF deals with why.
  4. "as he was known officially in all languages with the ordinal, even in Amharic" (User:Simfan34). Not very strong as an argument, because WP:OFFICIALNAME clearly states that use of the official name is to be considered but is not mandated if a more common form is used in English language reliable sources.

  Finally, a quick comment that even some of the arguments in this move review don't quite match policy as I'm reading it. For example, "nothing to do with the arguments put forward by either side, simply a complete lack of consensus". Here, WP:RMCI#Determining consensus states that certainly the closer does have to look at the arguments and the mere fact of an even split between support and oppose does not automatically mean the page cannot be moved.

  Having said all of the above, the one thing I would say is that although I tend to agree with the close, this was not a straightforward obvious close. As a non-admin and relative newcomer to the world of analysing and closing RM requests, I would (and did) steer well clear at the moment of attemptint to call ones such as this. The close requires a lot more than just vote tallying, but an in depth analysis of the arguments made, and a rigorous matching of arguments to policies. As such, I think it was certainly incumbent on User:BDD to offer a full and detailed explanation in his closing comment as to why the decision was made, and I hope that he will endeavour to do this in future contentious decisions such as this. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You have some good critiques of the oppose !votes. Given them, and that Cúchullain had more to say, it might be wise to relist, and to add these things to the discussion. Your points, if made in a close, may have been too much for a close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  @SmokeyJoe: Yes, the debate could have been relisted, but I don't think it was compulsary for it to be relisted, given that lots of debate had already been had and the topic had been up for RM for 18 days already. As I said above, there was definitely more explanation needed by the closer, but if I were an experienced admin I would probably either relist or call it as "move" with a condensed version of my rationale as given above! Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Amakuru: I think my citations of both n-grams and a cursory survey of reliable sources should disabuse most people of the notion that the name without the ordinal is either "common" or "used primarily in reliable sources".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Simfan34 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  @Simfan34: - what ngram have you cited? The only ngrams I saw in the move request was those provided by user:Srnec and User:Cuchullain, both of which suggested sources heavily favour the form without the ordinal. I'm not saying we should go exclusively by ngrams, but as far as I can see there was very little evidence of any sort offered by the "oppose" camp during the debate to counter the WP:COMMONNAME argument which was advanced with ngram evidence by the "support" camp. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In future, please keep in mind that an ngram is seldom taken as sufficient reason to do anything. This was a very rare exception in a case without consensus. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru, in addition to the ngram, Srnec gave these findings from reviewing ACLS Humanities e-books. I found similar results in a cursory look at my university's library collection; I didn't look further as no one challenged the existing evidence. And they certainly didn't provide any evidence that the ordinal was more common. Plus, of course, the consensus was for the move 5-3.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per my response to SmokeyJoe above. Srnec (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The policies were followed and the cogent arguments were paid attention to rather than the shrill complaints and off-topic protestations. jps (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor who never edits the article, but is arguing with me on a different page and presumably found this from my contrib list! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - As a procedural matter, the MR probably should have been closed as "no consensus." However, had I participated in the discussion, I'd probably have voted for the move, as the pro-move side arguments do appear to be stronger - there needs to be better sources that HSI is somehow "correct" and HS with no ordinal is "wrong." Call this a Relist or very Weak Endorse, then. SnowFire (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as closer. First of all, Simfan is focusing too much on the vote count. 4-4 doesn't necessarily mean no consensus, and besides, that's not even the right split here. In support, I saw five users (Charles Essie, Srnec, Imc, Neljack, and Cuchullain)—don't forget, nominators count too. And I saw three in opposition (Til, SqueakBox, and Simfan). I don't know if Simfan was counting Gyrofrog's comment as an oppose, but this seems speculative. Personally, I thought hiss comment about "the correct name" as skeptical, though this has little impact on the proper close.

The proper close was not determined by how many edits the participants had made to the article. I hadn't heard of authorism before, but it seems to pretty clearly violate WP:OWN and encourage a focus on contributors over content. This is frankly unrelated to any accepted criteria for RMs. In fact, it's entirely possibly that users with a personal stake in an article may not be able to assess naming issues in a detached, neutral manner. Who do we turn to for closes? Uninvolved administrators and other qualified users. We don't go to whichever admin has edited the article the most. I cannot stand for this sort of cliquish behavior.

No, the proper close was determined by strength of arguments, and there the supporters had it. CONCISE and COMMONNAME won out. Til's SqueakBox's point about the significance of the ordinal to Rastafarians is interesting, but largely tangential to Wikipedia naming policy. The best argument I saw in opposition was the analogy to Juan Carlos I and the like. Article titles should be consistent with those of similar articles, but just because A and B don't match doesn't mean B needs to conform to A; it could be the other way around. --BDD (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was Squeakbox's point about the significance to Rastafarians, not mine, if you were following. It is my point that this "decision" singles out Ethiopia for applying British protocol to, while Spain is not required to follow British protocol. But your statement "4-4 doesn't necessarily mean no consensus" is intriguing since it seems to turn the dictionary definition of "consensus" (i.e. agreement) up-side down. Can you clarify further? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction on the first point; I was relying on memory for that one, when I should have verified it first. As for your second, you should know that the Wikipedia definition of consensus is different from the dictionary definition. Pages like WP:NOTAVOTE express our (admittedly weird) system of what I might call meritocratic voting, where a vote is only as strong as the argument that accompanies it. So in that sense, perhaps "consensus" is a misleading term, but it's too entrenched to realistically be replaced, and I don't know what we would say otherwise. --BDD (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Rough consensus is what it would be better called. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Ordinarily, "consensus" is overturned like that by a closer admin *ONLY* in the rare instances that an army of suspicious single purpose accounts and people who never contributed to an article drive by and blatantly pad the vote. However this seems like a disturbing new trend of a fairly new admin who declared "consensus" for a move when opinion was split, based on his own whim, and siding WITH the drive-bys who never contributed, against the regular page editors who all opposed the move. That is why this particularly bad decision is now being contested. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you even get this stuff? A 5-3 breakdown, where the supporters had the stronger policy arguments, is a consensus. Any decent closer would have closed it the same way.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone but you is saying 4-4, perhaps you counted Jahsensie (who actually contributes there) on the wrong side? Not that 5-3 is a true "consensus" by non-orwellian definitions, and not that the arguments of the drive-bys (an ngram? please) were genuinely "stronger". This whole charade was an end-run around everything that is right, so I will not rest until it is restored to what the actual contributors/editors want. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As BDD just said, the actual breakdown was: Support: Charles Essie (the nominator), Srnec, Imc, Neljack, and me; Oppose: Til Eulenspiegel, SqueakBox, and Simfan34. Gyrofrog also made a comment that didn't recommend either option and Jahsensie left one unclear comment as a response to others' discussion. And of course the support votes were considered more convincing as has been explained repeatedly. And of course you don't WP:OWN the article because you've made contributions to it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was a puerile injustice applying British protocol to Ethiopia (but not Spain) for no compelling reason, and this will not end until the correct title is restored. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you're doing true !vote counting, the split is 5-4. The supporters (including the nominator) are Charles Essie, Srnec, Imc, Neljack, and Cuchullain, whiel the opposers are Til Eulenspiegel, SqueakBox, Simfan and Jahsensie. Gyofrog's is pretty much a neutral vote. It's possible some may have missed Jahsensie because he/she did not say "oppose" and his/her comment is indented so it looks like a reply to other comments.

Analysing Jahsensie's comment in detail (since I didn't before), I'm not convinced it's very grounded in policy either. The first point that "Many people in Ethiopia can be named Haile Selassie, but Tafari Makonnen was crowned as Haile Selassie the first" is not in dispute, but doesn't have any relevance if your assertion is that "Haile Selassie" is the common name for this person and also the primary topic for the name. The second part, that "What if royalty was coming back in Ethiopia, with a king named Haile Selassie II (Degmawi) ?" is also not relevant per WP:CRYSTALBALL. As and when that happens, this name can be revisited. And the same applies to Pope Francis when we later get a Pope Francis II. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, in fact it does not apply at all, because the principle of dropping the I if there is no II is distinctly part of the protocol for British monarchs. His Majesty Haile Selassie I is an Ethiopian monarch. Sysops aren't supposed to get a "supervote" and declare consensus when none exists out of their own arbitrary pov or limited undertanding of the topic. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]