Closer has assessed the move rather than the arguments made. An alternative examination of JSTOR evidence does not support the conclusion reached by the closer. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically:
Rather than reviewing evidence as offered and confirming that the evidence supports the conclusions claimed in the discussion, the closer has conducted alternative analyses of the evidence offered and applied their own criteria not offered in the discussion or specifically evident from P&G to reach conclusions.
In respect to ngram evidence, they provided their own analysis, that would group Full Faith and Credit Clause with Full Faith and Credit clause as supporting the present title, when ngram evidence offered in the discussion did not do this.
They offered their own opinion (not evidenced in the discussion) for discarding the ngram evidence.
There was however, discussion that would give reason to discard the HeinOnline search (as done), but they conducted their own detailed review of the results. Such a detailed analysis was not offered in the discussion. This goes beyond the source evidence as offered and what conclusions/assertions were made in respect to that evidence. The claim in the discussion was that HeinOnline and JSTOR results showed that English-language sources almost uniformly use "Full Faith and Credit Clause". A counterargument was made that the results do not actually show that it is uniformly used. The closers own analysis shows this.
When they analysed the JSTOR search, they found 16:6 for capitalising from one page of 25 results and assert this is a 3:1 ratio that supports capitalisation. No discussion at the RM would assert that a 3:1 ratio is sufficient to apply capitalisation, nor does P&G state this. This is their own interpretation of P&G (notwithstanding that their own analysis of JSTOR gives a ratio of 2.7:1).
They chose to analyse 25 results from JSTOR but 100 results from HeinOnline on the subsequently stated basis that the former gives 25 results per page and the latter gave scrolling results. There is no substantial difference between analysing 100 results from HeinOnline an equal number of results from JSTOR. The rational for analysing only 25 JSTOR v 100 HeinOnline results lacks substance.
The difference, however, is that a small number of results are more likely to give a skewed result (a statistical "fact"), which has happened in this instance. Considering an equal number of results as done with HeinOnline (ie 100), the conclusion is substantially different, even by the arguments that they would make. Analysing 100 JSTOR results gives only 56% capitalisation. It is clearly not a substantial majority per MOS:CAPS.
Closers comment I see the role of the closer as involving two things; verifying that the evidence provided matches the assertions made about it, and weighing the evidence and arguments provided through the lens of Wikipedia policy.
I believe in this discussion I did so:
Regarding #2, I assessed whether the claims made about the ngrams evidence (Majority lowercase, even, per book stats) were correct - and to do this, I had to group the forms that used lowercase, and I had to group the forms that used upper case. I see basic arithmetic as appropriate for a closer to do, even when the editor who initially presented the argument and evidence did not do so.
Regarding #3, closers are expected to consider the reliability of sources presented as evidence, per WP:RS and WP:SOURCETYPES. The most obvious example of this is if one editor bases their argument of GUNREL sources, and a second on GREL, then the second editors arguments are stronger - even if no editor raises the reliability issues of the first editors sources.
Regarding #4, editors asserted that HeinOnline supported capitalization. I merely reviewed the evidence to determine whether these claims were accurate.
Regarding #5, I didn't assert this is a 3:1 ratio that supports capitalisation. My conclusion is that whether 3:1 is sufficient to support capitalization is unclear - there is no ratio provided by the guideline - and in this discussion there was no consensus among editors as to whether it was sufficient.
Vacate the close but endorse result. I don't like the close at all, but not because it's incorrect. The role of the closer needs to summarize of the discussion. As soon as you do your own research, as soon as you make your own interjection, you are no longer a neutral arbiter. I'd strongly recommend vacating it and !voting instead. That being said, I would have closed that discussion as no consensus, as neither support nor oppose seem to be making stronger arguments than the other. SportingFlyerT·C 11:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see my close as involving my own research, because I only reviewed the evidence presented by the various commenters to verify that their claims were correct and did not introduce new evidence. If the closer is instead expected to take on faith that what editors say about the evidence is correct, I will keep that in mind for the future and avoid reviewing the provided evidence. BilledMammal (talk) 11:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely did. There is nothing more frustrating as a participant than a closer who reviews the evidence on their own and then closes the discussion instead of !voting - that is a WP:SUPERVOTE, even if you didn't do any additional research. SportingFlyerT·C 12:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this - I believe that part of the closers role is to review the presented evidence - but if the consensus here is that closers shouldn't review evidence I will avoid doing so in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here isn't that you reviewed it, it's that you drew your own conclusions from it, even if you don't believe you did. SportingFlyerT·C 13:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify what conclusions you believe I drew - and how I could have reviewed the sources to verify the accuracy of the related claims without drawing those conclusions? BilledMammal (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy – I agree with Cinderella157's analysis, especially #1. There's nothing wrong with reviewing the evidence to make sure your close is consistent with the evidence presented - say you found a consensus to support, you'd look at the sources to make sure it actually fits the close. The issue is you specifically drew conclusions from the evidence to support your close, which Cinderella157 has laid out in their points #2-7. I don't really have anything additional to add - I'd strongly suggest you vacate your close and turn your close into a !vote. SportingFlyerT·C 13:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I’ve misunderstood your comment; you appear to be saying it’s appropriate to review the evidence to determine if it supports the close (There's nothing wrong with reviewing the evidence to make sure your close is consistent with the evidence presented), but at the same time you are saying that it is not appropriate to do so (The issue is you specifically drew conclusions from the evidence to support your close)
Can you clarify? Perhaps using Cinderella’s #2 as an example of what I did wrong, and what the appropriate way to review that evidence to verify the relevant claim would have been? BilledMammal (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How have I not been clear? Closers are supposed to summarize a discussion, not interject their own opinion. The key is your quote As such, this hinges on whether the supporters proved their case that NCCAPS applies, and to determine this we must review the provided evidence: No, to determine this you must review the discussion to see if those participating in the discussion have shown that WP:NCCAPS applies. You analysed the n-grams, Google Scholar, JSTOR, and HeinOnline yourself, and drew your own conclusion about the importance and outcome each of the sources in deciding there was no consensus - to summarise your close, you essentially said "support wins depending on what the sources say, but the sources aren't clear, so no consensus." SportingFlyerT·C 14:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
to summarise your close, you essentially said "support wins depending on what the sources say, but the sources aren't clear, so no consensus That's not fully accurate, but going with it for a moment - isn't that what you said was appropriate for a closer to do?: There's nothing wrong with reviewing the evidence to make sure your close is consistent with the evidence presented - say you found a consensus to support, you'd look at the sources to make sure it actually fits the close.
Regardless, I think we aren't going to agree here; I think the closer should review the sources as part of the close to aid in assessing the strength of arguments, and if I understand correctly you think they shouldn't. We'll see what the consensus is. BilledMammal (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You looked at the sources and specifically drew a conclusion from them, meaning your opinion holds more weight than anyone's in the discussion. If you were going to close against consensus, you should have !voted. SportingFlyerT·C 09:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, editor SportingFlyer, I don't know how else a closer is supposed to operate. You do look at the sources and you do draw a conclusion from them in regard to their application to the arguments; however, this does not mean that the closer's "opinion" is weightier than involved editors, it means that the closer has done their job well. So again, would you have closers ignore the RS details of the involved editors' arguments? P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there 11:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Paine Ellsworth: The role of the closer is to review consensus, not to review sources. If sources have been used in the discussion, there's no reason why the closer can't review them to see what they say. It's clear here the closer performed original research (look at their ngram link, along with the fact they chose how to weight the sources they reviewed), which turns the role of the closer from a finder of consensus to someone who substituted their own opinion based on their interpretation of the facts. The only place here where that should happen consistently here is with copyright matters, the one place where consensus is less important than experience. SportingFlyerT·C 00:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then, guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I would have closed the same way, and so would you probably; the only difference for me would be that my close would have been short and sweet, and the only way editors would have discovered extras like my reviewing sources and such would have been during informal discussion on my talk page. And that brings us right back to the reasons to endorse here. Is the closure reasonable? Yes. Is it in line with the closing instructions? Yes. Even you have endorsed the closure after asking for it to be vacated. We've caught a smelly ol' trout here. When I catch a fish, I either clean it and cook it, or I throw it back; can't do both. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there 01:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would have reached the same conclusion, but I would not have closed the same way. I agree those advocating for the move had a more correct interpretation of policy, but you did not have to perform any additional research to determine those supporting had not definitively shown WP:NCCAPS applied to get to the no consensus result. As someone who participates and rarely closes, I also hate supervotes, and am not afraid to call them out... The only thing odd about the close was that the closer's opinion didn't actually change the outcome of the close. SportingFlyerT·C 01:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:IMR, there are two substantive reasons to initiate a move review. In initiating this MR, there are two reasons given. The second relates to the closers assessment of JSTOR evidence, whether this was reasonable or whether a more reasonable assessment leads to a different conclusion. There is also additional evidence that was added at the time of the close but caused an edit conflict with the close. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Close (involved), the close was well-reasoned, especially since the United States government and the legal system of the United States use the common name uppercased version from the Constitution. And of course the closer should review the sources, since a good close, as this one is, takes into account all of the arguments and reads all of the evidence. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice touch with your "E.C." above. I should mention that I had a lowercase "ec" (edit conflict) with your endorsement. I got over it :>) P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there 10:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. < uninvolved > Strongly! See, this is why I prefer concise, laconic closing statements, and I prefer to elaborate on my talk page or at the outside end of the move request when necessary. Wonderful, elaborative and precise closing statements like this almost inevitably attract supervote outcries. (Yes, this one did, and no, I definitely do not sense a supervote in this case!) This closure was more than reasonable and in accordance with WP:RMCI, imho. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there 09:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Robertsky moved the article to an inflammatory and non-neutral title, "Flour massacre," subsequent to a discussion that was tainted by significant off-wiki canvassing. But even were the canvassing not to have taken place, the new title is a breach of WP:NPOV, WP:NPOVNAME and in particular WP:IMPARTIAL. The sourcing is not definitive to say the least as to whether there was a massacre and whether the reliable sourcing calls it that, as required by NPOVNAME, and moving to this title puts Wikipedia in the position of saying in its own voice that a massacre indeed was committed by the IDF. Local consensus, legitimate or tainted or not, does not overruled NPOV. Coretheapple (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse That was an difficult but well-reasoned close by robertsky. I don't see any reason to overturn it. The discussion was patrolled and users hatted votes of non-extended confirmed users, there's disagreement within the discussion about what is actually NPOV here, WP:IMPARTIAL wasn't brought up at all during the discussion, there's enough reliable sourcing presented in the move review which uses the title, and there's evidence in the discussion we frequently include "massacre" in page titles. Politically charged topics are my least favourite ones to review because often even politics will seep into the move review discussion, but I looked only at whether the close was validly performed. The close reflects consensus, the arguments made by those supporting the move are not illogical, and what is actually NPOV here was fiercely contested during the debate. SportingFlyerT·C 23:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: SportingFlyer did not participate in the RM discussion. – robertsky (talk) 04:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Per WP:POVNAMING, we should only use POV titles if they are widely used in reliable sources. According to the closer, this is not the case here, with the word only being used in equal proportion to it not being used and as such per the closer's own assessment of the discussion we cannot use this title.
I'm also not convinced that the closer is correct about how widespread the use of the word is; most of the "uses" presented as evidence were rebutted by those opposed to the move, due to the sources either not using "massacre" but instead quoting individuals who use it, the sources being unreliable, or the sources only using it in their headlines which per WP:HEADLINES we ignore as being sensationalized and unreliable. In contrast, those opposed to the move presented a large number of highly reliable sources which declined to use "massacre". BilledMammal (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: BilledMammal had participated in the RM discussion. – robertsky (talk) 04:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved). [Note: per above, editors should state whether they were or were not originally involved in the original RM] The claim regarding canvassing was made in the original RM, was discussed, and ultimately not believed to be a factor due to the fact that only extended-confirmed users were permitted to weigh in; Robertsky provided a rationale for why canvassing was not believed to be a factor on his talk page. Claims regarding NPOV have already been argued on the original RM; as far as citations of WP:NPOV and WP:NPOVNAME in the current request, I would direct editors to the second criteria of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)#Maintaining neutral point of view, which states, "If there is no common name for the event, and there is a generally accepted word used when identifying the event, the title should include the word even if it is a strong one such as "massacre" or "genocide" or "war crime"." The example given is of Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, where there is not a common name per se but there is scholarly consensus that the actions constituted torture. While those in favor of overturning may argue that the term "massacre" is not "generally accepted," the sources discussed in the RM demonstrate the repeated use of the term "massacre" in reference to the event, including by United Nations rapporteurs. As these issues have already been debated in the original RM and taken into consideration in closing, I do not see any fault in Robertsky's decision. Rather, I believe he made a difficult yet fair decision, and I do not believe that either reverting or relisting is warranted. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 04:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence presented in the RM did not support the claim that the word "massacre" was generally accepted - even the closer said that it was only used as often as not, which doesn’t meet that standard. BilledMammal (talk) 04:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closer note: I stand by my evaluation of the Requested move discussion and have answered Coretheapple's concerns on canvassing and request to reconsider of the move of the subject on my talk page. I will accept the outcome of this Move review without any ill feelings to any participants here. – robertsky (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved) - with a reminder that move review is not part two of an RM and that the discussion here is supposedly focused on if the closer read consensus correctly. And in this case there was an overwhelming consensus for usage of the word "massacre" in the title. The attempt to overturn here reads as trying to relitigate the move request, not challenge the fact that there was indeed an overwhelming consensus. Not liking that consensus isn’t the same as having a basis for challenging the finding of one. nableezy - 09:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How far does assume good faith have to go? Reading over the parts of the situation on this wiki almost felt like propaganda attempts to paint over an obvious massacre. Is there some way to look at this through a lens to still AGF?
Involved endorse. First, I do not see how in the slightest way the title "flour massacre" is inflammatory, and I find the claim about neutrality to be weak because many sources do call this a massacre even though many mainstream Western sources do not, and this is a de facto massacre. The talk page is ECP and that Twitter/X post was not advocating for people to participate in the RM, so the claims about canvassing are basically null. Also, move review is not a place to continue the discussion about whether the article should be moved or not, but rather a place to evaluate whether the close was, for example, an accurate representation of the consensus. I see no problems whatsoever with Robertsky's closure. User3749 (talk) 09:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - So that something worthwhile comes from this review, perhaps editors with concerns about the appropriate use of the word massacre could review Category:Massacres_in_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict and its subcategory contents like List of massacres in the Palestinian territories and List of massacres in Israel to ensure that they comply with policy. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that either we have a lot of inflammatory and non-neutral article titles, or we don't. starship.paint (RUN) 16:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (uninvolved with move request, involved with article) - after the RM was opened, and even after the RM was closed, more sources, including non-English sources, have emerged to support the title "Flour massacre". I do not believe they were raised in the RM. CNN / Libération / Le Monde / KOMPAS TV / The Hankyoreh / Al-Ahramstarship.paint (RUN) 16:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (involved) Does WP:CITOGENESIS and WP:CIRCULAR apply to page titles? Could that apply here? What Wikipedia chooses to call such a major event may impact what others, including mainstream media, call it. --GerritCUTEDH 14:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The phenomenon is worth looking at, but my understanding is that WP:CITOGENESIS in particular refers to unsourced and often fictitious additions to Wikipedia articles that are then picked up by outside sources, reported on as true, and subsequently reincorporated into Wikipedia as citations. I don't believe that it refers to instances where a Wikipedia article or title amplifies an existing name for something that did in fact occur. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 17:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Involved endorse The principal issue is whether to move to something with the word massacre. Apart from the fact that any closer would face some difficulty in overturning such a large consensus of editors, even if a policy based argument could be made against it, what would be the alternative, given that RS have not coalesced around any other description.? Selfstudier (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I did not participate in the move discussion. I believe the Canvassing point Coretheapple raises is truly not an issue. ECR was, correctly, very much enforced on this discussion. As for the rest of the concerns I think Robertsky's explanation stands very well on its own. Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved). I arrive here to make the following points: As robertsky correctly surmised at his talk page, I am included in the group that came to the article due to it being heavily discussed in the news cycle, then saw the discussion banner at the top. Just to be sure that the closer assessed consensus correctly, I did a quick count and found that 75 voted Support vs. 23 who voted Oppose — which demonstrates a clear consensus to change the title. As for OP's other point, I could not find anything in WP:NPOVNAME or WP:IMPARTIAL that forbids the description of a mass death event of civilians that was instigated by an armed militia as a massacre, especially one that was widely reported as one. For the record, I supported moving the title of a different article from 'massacre' to 'raid' due to the different circumstances and sourcing there. Havradimleaf a message 06:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (involved): First, determining consensus is not a majority vote. Per Wikipedia:Consensus, consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight. So, the RM having most participants support the move is very much irrelevant to what the consensus actually is. Second, unlike what the closer Robertsky said in the closing statement, the supporters did not prove that the word "massacre" is being used by English-language RS to refer to the article subject as widely as it is not, let alone a majority of relevant RS. As BilledMammal stated, vast majority of sources provided in the RM either do not use the word "massacre" at all, only use it in quotes attributed to someone else, use it as part of a headline, or are not reliable. Also, the supporters did not provide evidence that the word "massacre" is generally accepted for WP:NCENPOV either and the relatively brief closing statement does not even address this issue. --StellarHalo (talk) 05:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the RM having most participants support the move is very much irrelevant to what the consensus actually is. You are right, and I had clearly stated this in my response to Coretheapple: those who have simply put 'Support/oppose per X' without much explanation of why so have been discounted in the assessment as consensus isn't poll voting. I evaluated at the strengths of the arguments against policies and guidelines instead.– robertsky (talk) 06:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse moving away from "incident" (involved) - First, how I got involved in the discussion: I frequent the Current Events portal, and was aware of the event from other news sources, but then I saw that it got a link to an article title labelling it an "incident" and vehemently disagreed with this, as a flagrant breach of WP:EUPHEMISM. I suggested a SNOW move right away because it was so obviously in violation of that, and throughout the discussion it became clear that, while there was disagreement over where to send it, nearly everyone opposed to the move agreed that "incident" should be changed. robertsky was correct in citing WP:BARTENDER in support of moving it, with the clear consensus that it couldn't stay where it was. I'm mostly ambivalent to the exact title used, something else like "Al-Rashid humanitarian aid mass shooting" or "mass shooting and stampede" would've been fine for me, as long as it made it clear that a lot of people died and it was primarily the IDF killing people, rather than primarily a stampede (in accordance with reliable reporting on the matter).
It should also be pointed out here that the original article title of "incident" was made by a non-EC user, in violation of WP:ARBPIA, and was first moved to Al-Rashid Street massacre by an EC user, before being WP:RMUM reverted by another EC user. If it had gone by that title originally, I doubt anyone would've even suggested moving it to "incident", let alone get a consensus on doing so. --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE is essentially the same thing as BARTENDER, and is part of RMCI. It cautions against opening a Move Review in such a circumstance, instead endorsing the ability to open a new RM immediately if it is believed that the chosen title is incorrect (which robertsky noted in the closing comment). With this in mind, it seems to me that the scope of this review ought to be limited to whether there was consensus that it had to move somewhere, and whether the chosen destination was completely unreasonable --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the closing statement, Robertsky unambiguously said that there is a consensus to move to a title with 'massacre' in it rather than just that there is a consensus to move somewhere else away from the previous title. Also, in the last sentence, they also said that another RM could be opened only to discuss which of the possible 'massacre' titles to use. If the original closing statement is endorsed, then a new RM to move to a new title without 'massacre' would be considered as going against previous consensus and speedily closed. StellarHalo (talk) 07:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved): The closer made an entirely reasonable call given the not just super but controlling majority of votes for some sort of move, per WP:BARTENDER, and the swiftly evolving source landscape as the RM progressed. When it started, the eventual target was infrequent; by the time it ended, it was a highly frequented and increasingly prevalent name that represented the closest thing to a common name at the time of the close. It was obvious early on that it had potential for a move to a third option beyond the proposed title, so it was little surprise when it resulted in this. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Admin did not leave enough time to discuss this review. Users had shown support for the new move request in previous move request discussions. 72.222.92.103 (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User Bbb23 has threatened an editing block for filing this review request. 72.222.92.103 (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved). The IP 2600:8804:6600:4:* created 3 RMs at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory in the last month, and didn't receive a single support !vote in any of the 3 RMs. Not a good use of editor time. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closer note - editors reviewing this request should note that the 2600:8804:6600:4:x:x:x:x and 72.222.x.x editors are the same person, and the 199.192.x.x editor is probably the same person as well.
I speedy closed this because the request is the third this editor posted on this article in less than two weeks and the fourth by the same editor since October, following a fifth by someone else in August 2023. That's five requests in a little over six months, and opposition was overwhelming in all of them. The filer's move request on 20 February was closed by Adumbrativus after the full 7 days, with several of the commenters expressing frustration at the frequency of the requests in spite of strong consensus for the current title. The filer posted another move request on 28 February (one day later); that request was removed (not closed, technically) by Novem Linguae who suggested waiting "a couple months" before making another request. The filer ignored that advice and re-posted the same request on 1 March (two days later). I speedy closed that request after a generous four days (to be clear I wasn't waiting - it was four days in when I came across it) when there were still no comments supporting the move, and I imposed a moratorium of one year because of the previous commenters expressing frustration with the repetitive move requests.
In review I see that Adumbrativus invited a move request on the question of whether or not to pluralize "theory" in the page title. I disagree: when Novem Linguae removed the 28 February move request they asked if any other editors wanted to continue the discussion, and the only response was to the effect of "please no, enough is enough". That suggests to me that the requests are disruptive, but others may have a different opinion on that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 04:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved). That Talk page is plagued with endless move requests which generate the same sort of discussion but which don't go anywhere (and which would make little meaningful difference to anything even if they did). Thanks to Ivanvector for stepping in to tamp down the disruption. Bon courage (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse (uninvolved). I've looked over the talk page and page history briefly, and I agree that the repeated RMs were reaching the point of disruption; I don't blame the regular participants on the talk page for becoming exhausted by them, and I think that the issuance of a moratorium was appropriate in the situation. However, I'm not sure that a speedy close was appropriate for this particular discussion. Most of the repetitive RMs were pushing for the destination "COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy theory" (or near-identical titles); however, this latest RM advocated moving the page to "COVID-19 lab leak theories", pluralizing the last word and omitting any mention of conspiracies. This difference is pretty important, in my view: while there was effectively unanimous consensus against "conspiracy theory" language, there was more openness to the idea of "theories", with both Crossroads and Tewdar expressing some level of support for that formulation in the 20 February RM.I don't think anything would be gained by reopening the RM at this point – the talk page watchers are tired of RMs, after all, and the comments in the 1 March RM expressed nigh-unanimous and cogently argued opposition. However, if an analogous situation crops up in the future, I think it'd be better to let the last few days of the RM play out rather than speedy-closing. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I don't understand why the IP was blocked for posting the move review, though I think Ivanvector got this one exactly right. SportingFlyerT·C 23:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As ModernDayTrilobite suggests, it's wrong to tie together the previous proposals for "conspiracy", which have been repeatedly rejected, with the latest proposal for pluralizing, which has not been the subject of any previous RM. I assume it was a good faith request. As a genuinely different proposal, it was entitled to a discussion on the merits, a discussion which did not require a pre-discussion discussion to obtain prior consent of other involved "boldly closing" editors. Thanks to SilverLocust for the reasoned argument – I endorse the not-moved outcome. Adumbrativus (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). Looking through the recent move requests, it appears to me that the frequency of RMs was reaching a point of disruptiveness from the IP editor, whether intentional or not, and each previous RM generated consensus against a move. While other editors observe a difference between the initial "conspiracy theory" request and the new plural "theories" request, Ivanvector noted that this request was a duplicate of one that had generated no input whatsoever after four days. The IP editor was told to not resubmit a move request, and yet another one was resubmitted not long after. I see no reason to relist or otherwise overturn. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 15:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
