User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

recently uploaded files

Hello, someone just said on my commons talk page that the files listed here are 'deriviative works' and may be deleted. Could you explain? L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

L293D, it means you haven't listed who the original composer is and the information for that. i.e. none of these melodies are your original composition. Lucky for you, the first three appear to be out of copyright. To Jesus Christ Our Sovereign King is actually the tune ICH GLAUB AN GOTT, and the version you are likely playing off of is copyright 1986 (and the Harmonizer is British and died in 2010, which means it will lapse out of copyright in 2080.) It will have to be deleted on Commons (I'll tag it as such after this). The other three appear to be in copyright. The tune for Holy, Holy, Holy is called Nicea and was composed by John Bacchus Dykes in 1861. He died in the 19th century, so has been dead for more than 70 years. Thaxted (tune) (the tune for O With Thy Benediction) lapsed out of copyright in 2004 as Gustav Holst died in 1934. Crucifer (Lift High the Cross) lapsed out of copyright as of May 2017. Hope this is helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, the tune for Rejoice the Lord is King was composed in the 18th century [1]. You should be good on that one . You might also find c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

L293D, I've updated the sourcing information on Commons, which should be enough to save the existing files for deletion. I've also asked an admin there about moving File:O With Thy Benediction.ogg to something such as File:Thaxted (Holst).oga as the tune is used in several popular songs (I Vow to Thee, My Country being the most known song played to this tune. In terms of Church music, O God, Beyond All Praising is likely more popular than O With Thy Benediction in the United States currently, at least in Catholic circles, and I suspect it'd likely be the same for Anglicans.) TonyBallioni (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Great! Just one thing: why is it named File:Thaxted (Holst).oga when its an .ogg file? L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I suspect a typo. Primefac (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Ogg is just a container, and can be used with various file types. .ogg is ambiguous, so the .oga (.ogv, .ogx) extensions are used to indicate the type of file. The software automagically changes .ogg to the more specific extension when renaming files. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

AntiCompositeNumber is my official technology advisor because of shit like this. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Reviewer rights

Thanks for accepting my request. Best. Eagleash (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Is this paraphrasing too close?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

[2]

Not asking for revdel here because the problem is that quotation marks were removed without sufficient changes to the text. Assuming I'm reading it correctly. Am I crazy?

The quotes were not "too long or numerous" to begin with, IMO, just that without inline attribution it looked like we were attributing them to the wrong person, so I don't think having the quotes would be a copyright problem, but I suspect not having them in quotation marks might be.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to look at this later today. If I don't get back, please feel free to poke me. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri 88, yeah, that's too close. I've fixed it and revdel'd. Margin1522, it might be easier to include attribution to the source in the sentence if the concern is that the reader will think someone other than the source quoted said it. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. That would be wise – with a Japanese source it's usually better to assume that quote marks mean paraphrase. Maybe someone will do that. I added one quote that I was able to verify in the original UN document, but right now I don't feel like doing much more with this article (having been mocked on the Talk page).– Margin1522 (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry...

... but what about this? The source says The prime minister explained that the word was used initially by Japanese facing food shortages in the past when they told their children to make sure there were no leftovers and our article currently says In 2005, Japan's Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi explained that Mottainai was initially used in the past by people facing food shortages, they telling their their children there were no leftovers. The only paraphrasing is inserting the name of the prime minister, replacing "the word" with the word in question (not italicized or placed in quotes; if I had copyedited it without examining the source I might have accidentally changed it back to "the word") and some ungrammatical stuff at the end. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Ugh This edit summary made me suspicious. Every edit from the page's creation to the most recent included this unmarked copy-pasted text, and I don't have time to check the other sources right now. What's the policy here? Revdelling the entire history seems like essentially the same as page deletion, but are you WP:INVOLVED now that I posted this on your talk page rather than proposing speedy deletion? This is a mess... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

See this and this. I am beginning to think Dream Focus (talk · contribs) might need a serious talking to about close paraphrasing and unmarked quotations, and maybe even a block if this continues (entirely aside from his continued personal attacks). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri 88, I've revdel'd the content you asked about at 22:24. Since I don't have access to a source, I would suggest you list the other article at WP:CP specifying the offline source. This will give you time to look at other sources and verify if it is G12 eligible or if it just needs revdel. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Which source do you mean? All three of the ones in Mottainai Grandma are online and linked in the article (although I have not checked all of them yet). The text I removed (as part of the Japan International Cooperation Agency efforts in India) was lifted almost directly from the source (as part of the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)'s efforts in India), and I was since reverted. The only way it could not be copyvio is if the phrase as part of the Japan International Cooperation Agency efforts in India is brief enough that copying it word-for-word is acceptable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

​Sorry, misunderstood you as to where the material was coming from. I don't mind doing any of this (I like copyvio work), but it is easier for me if I can see the source. If you're removing copyvio material, the way I suggest doing it is to have an edit summary such as rmv copyvio from http://wwww.example.com/abc123, that makes it easier to deal with. I've cured the copyvio above, and revdel'd. It's short, but there is a plausible paraphrase that works better. I've gone ahead and revdel'd. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Cheers! Yeah, I'll try to do that in the future. The problem here is actually that the article was created to make a WP:POINT, by an editor who clearly hadn't read either the book itself or any of the sources very closely. He has repeatedly described it as a "novel" (even a "bestselling" one) when it is in fact a short children's picture book. I think the ultimate fate of the page should be to be redirected to the main mottainai article, which would make all the copyvio stuff kinda redundant (I guess it could be the difference between deleting and redirecting and just redirecting). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I did not make the article to make a point. I have created articles in the past for books I have never read nor care about, as well as documentaries, and random other things. See User:Dream Focus/Articles I created which no one successfully managed to delete. Your accusations of it being Pointy, is as baseless as all the others you have made against me since the whole ARS argument started. You need to stop focusing on me and find something else to do. Dream Focus 00:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've basically cleared Immigration Street of copy-pasted text (although I may have inadvertently turned it into a quote-farm in the process). Would you mind rev-delling everything up to this edit?

More generally, his response to my warning doesn't look promising, and the more digging I do, the worse it seems to get. This is the oldest I've located, but per AGF I can't be certain it was verbatim plagiarized; the blanking I did was motivated as much by the content being inappropriate. He doesn't seem to add substantial amounts of prose to articles very often, but the samples I've checked included copy-pasting (or close paraphrasing) around two thirds of the time. His reliance on free online sources at least makes checking relatively easy (when he directly cites the sources), but he has almost 30,000 edits going back more than ten years, which is very concerning, and the older ones (such as this one) don't seem to cite their sources, which would make checking very difficult.

Do you think another CCI report is in order?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

As for Super Cauldron article from 2009, a lot of Atari game articles I saw back then just listed the brief information about them from the game box. When I did that it said in a reference that was from the game box. [3] With games like that, nothing else you can say about them, there not much to them. As for Immigration street, I answered that [4]. I'd appreciate an administrator responding to that. Dream Focus 16:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Just noticed this. @Dream Focus: If there is "nothing else you can say about" a product than what is on the box it came in, then the topic does not meet GNG. I'm sorry to bring this up again, but someone who has !voted in as many AFDs as you have should understand our notability guidelines better than that. This is basically unrelated to copyright concerns, mind you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Dream Focus, I asked Primefac to take a second look at the Immigration Street article as well. I'll let him post his thoughts here, but my initial thoughts are that at least some of the content in that article constitute a violation of the English Wikipedia's copyright policy as a close paraphrase. Given the above concerns, I do think that a WP:CCI is likely the best way forward here. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2FA / AWB

Hi TonyBallioni, just FYI: we were able to get Alaa's AWB working using Wikipedia:Using AWB with 2FA. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Xaosflux, we seemed to cross paths there. Glad everything is working. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello

I appreciate your recent reply to me.^[5] I want to say that you never said a thing out of the way to me that even remotely seemed to besmirch my sensibilities. My expressions were self loathing, generated out of frustration, and mostly, they were misplaced in that comment! I did wish that I had participated in the discussion where the details of the proposal were decided. In fact, it just occurred to me that you'd have done yourself a great service had you linked that discussion at the RfC's outset. It would seem that forgoing uninformed commentary like mine is the way forward. And I'd have been glad to give you such a break too. Is there such a link? Even now, I'd like to see it (perhaps even more; now) Cheers.--John Cline (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

John Cline, the on-wiki discussion is at User talk:TonyBallioni/Ban reform workshop. I also got feedback from other admins off-wiki, and if I recall that is what led to the "publicly documented" bit. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

User talk:PAKHIGHWAY

You may wish to revoke the talk page access as well. —MBL ^talk 16:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I would support it and for PH's own benefit, who seems hell-bent to dig his own grave.~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for deleting my user page. Can you also delete my talk page? DBZFan30 (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) User talk pages are not generally deleted per WP:DELTALK. You can archive it or blank it if you wish. --Majora (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

DBZFan30, as I have told you three times now: we do not delete user talk pages except in very exceptional circumstances. Yours is not an exceptional circumstance. There is also nothing I can see there that qualifies for revision deletion. Same goes with the All Star article. If you want a rename, you can request it at Special:GlobalRenameRequest and a steward or global renamer will action it. I would recommend you do that last part now as it will speed up the process by which you are renamed. I'm sorry for being blunt here, but I've already told you the same thing twice, and There'sNoTime has as well. The answer is not going to change if you keep asking: administrators on this Wikipedia would be violating policy if we were to do what you asked. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Majora: Archiving and blanking my talk page won't do anything.

@TonyBallioni:, I'm asking you nicely to delete my talk page right now, no questions asked. You won't be violating any policies. DBZFan30 (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@DBZFan30: I’m telling you right now that there is not a single administrator on this project who is going to delete your talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Sarah Jane Brown

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi Tony - just to say thanks for the closure, but I'd like to ask you to look at one thing. Your close cites WP:NATURALDIS, but applies it wrongly. The wording clearly says "Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources", but it was amply demonstrated in the discussion that "Sarah Jane Brown" is not at all common in sources. That was by far the main reason why the current title is not valid per our policies. The only justification for retaining it there is because of an IAR type situation. Please could you look at this again, because although I don't see that issue addressed one way or the other. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Amakuru, yes I agree with that and addressed it slightly when I was thinking about it, but I don't think it made it's way into the final close. The naming policy generally prefers natural disambiguations even when they aren't the most common name, just common enough. I think you were the one who pointed out that the question was whether or not the reader will think it is the wrong person when they reach the page. The discussion as a whole tended to think there wasn't a strong case that they would be confused. There was sourcing presented for Sarah Jane, but it was relatively minor. If it had been stronger, it would likely have tipped the discussion fully to not moved in my view, but I think it was sufficient to make what you call the IAR votes have some basis in the policy so not as to completely be IAR. I think the wording used in the close was slight preference, and it really is just that, slight. I'll ping @Primefac and SkyWarrior: for their thoughts. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the close. Didn't go down the way I wanted, but your judgment of the consensus was accurate, and you were kind to all sides. --GRuban (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, I was just going to ask the same question that Amakuru did, and I don't find your answer to be satisfactory. The definition of natural disambiguation is "an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources". The discussion clearly showed that the subject of the article is not commonly called "Sarah Jane Brown" in English reliable sources (she's called that in almost no sources - this was not disputed), and is therefore NOT a natural disambiguation. So I'm troubled that even in your answer here, as well as in the close where you even say "it comes down to a question of policies and guidelines", you continue to refer to this name as natural disambiguation. It's missing the whole point of the decade-long objection to this title. Frankly, that's exasperating.

I had a second question too. While I agree the raw !vote counts cannot be totally ignored, I hope we agree what needs to be given far more consideration is the weighted !vote counts. Yes, there were JDLI arguments on all sides, but there were strong policy-based arguments too. Did you actually do a count after discounting all of the "this option is better than the current title" !votes accordingly? I ask because I did not see any indication in the close that this was done. If it wasn't, can you please do so now? I'm curious as to the outcome.

While I'm at it, did you look at the previous RM from a weeks ago which I withdrew early for reasons specified there? Did you take any of that discussion into account in your decision? --В²C ☎ 19:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

This was a three person close, and upon reading it, we all came to the independent conclusion that there was definitely no consensus for a move. The question was between no consensus, no consensus to move, and not moved. None of us felt any justification for a move based on the discussion, and while you are correct on the definition of natural disambiguation, it was a point of discussion that was raised during the RM. Those opposing the stable title disagreed that it was met, but those opposing a move either felt it met or were unconvinced by the arguments against it. I get the whole point of the decade long objection to the title, but for a five years, no one has been able to achieve consensus to move it or achieve consensus that the objection was a good reason to have a different title, and the move to it was endorsed at a move review, so it isn't like this title hasn't gone through enough vetting. Finally, I personally didn't take into account the previous RM, as there was more than enough to read in the one we closed, and it had been listed on the centralized discussion, meaning that there was going to be a much wider audience commenting. This also means that I didn't expect them to cite the ALLCAPS policies and guidelines that RM regulars are familiar with, but looked at the policy basis for those arguments. RMs are not !votes, but a move over the numbers from a stable title needs to be done with a strong policy backing, and I don't think there was a strong enough reason to do so, especially as this has been a stable title for so long.

To the point of people who preferred the other titles to the current one, yes, I took it into consideration. I also took into consideration the people who supported the current title and said that they opposed all the others without opposing them. There simply isn't a consensus for a move at this time, just as there hasn't been at any of the 8 previous RMs trying to change the title. You are free to ask for a move review, but I expect that will be an even bigger mess than the RM itself was, and don't think it will change the eventual outcome. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Tony, respectfully, and I'm kind of addressing this to you because you're the senior admin on the panel, you've been around the block as much as we have, and you know how these things go. I am not upset at the result per se - I was hopeful we might get a different outcome, but was pragmatic about the possibility that the close might be to retain the current title. What I didn't expect was what to me is what looks like a fairly bland dismissal as "no consensus" without much explanation. Respectully again, I don't get the impression from the two paragraph close that the panel really got down into the detail (and believe me, we have collectively spent *a lot of time and effort* discussing that detail over the past 2 weeks). In particular, the assertion was made many times in the discussion that WP:NATURALDIS is off the table for this article, because "Sarah Jane Brown" is not a common name. NATURALDIS simply doesn't apply, yet the close cited it a a valid reason to retain the status quo. The aim of this exercise was to put the question to bed, so that we can all feel that the correct result was achieved, and I just don't feel that has happened. It's not a question of going to move review, you're probably right that the decision would be endorsed, it's a question of seeing evidence that the panel considered everything in the discussion, and that the result was really policy based, with the relevant policies set out in black and white, rather than a head count. Thanks, and I hope that makes some sense.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Amakuru and Born2cycle, another factor to take into account is that Sarah Brown is a public-relations specialist—she has held PR-related positions since she left university over 30 years ago—so it's safe to assume that she understands the importance of a name. If she had objections to Sarah Jane Brown, she would have made those known. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, while her having objections to it, and making them known, would make the case against using it a bit stronger, usage in reliable sources is our definitive guidance for titles for every other article on WP, as far as I know. Subject preference is not that important (unless it is reflected in reliable source usage). Otherwise we would move Cat Stevens to Yusuf Islam. Frankly, I'm baffled by how many very experienced editors seem so willing to dismiss the source usage evidence in this one case. I can't think of another example like it. Why does it not matter here? I just don't get it. --В²C ☎ 21:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

A BLP subject objecting to a title matters a great deal. It's not definitive, but it's certainly important.

There is very little source usage that is helpful in this context. The sources describe her as Gordon Brown's wife, because his notability outweighs hers. But describing someone and deciding what to use as a biography title are different issues. Often they coincide, but don't let that blind you to the fact that they are separate processes. Titling the article as "someone's wife" would be inappropriate for all the reasons others have explained. Alternative parenthetical descriptions—such as Sarah Brown (public relations)—have failed to gain consensus.

And so we have fallen back on what she calls herself. Sarah Brown isn't available, but there is also Sarah Jane Brown (e.g. the Companies House registry) and Sarah (Macauley) Brown (e.g. the LinkedIn page). Given that the article has been at Sarah Jane Brown for nearly five years, I have to assume that she's aware of it and doesn't mind. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

There are hundreds of reliable secondary sources that refer to her as Sarah Brown and describe her as GB's wife. None of them use SJB. Yes, it turns out, there are one or two primary sources that use SJB, which finally someone dug up, but these are not anywhere near sufficient to qualify as natural disambiguation (because it is not a name "that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources". That qualification is in there for very good reason. Therefore we must use parenthetic disambiguation. The whole discussion should be about which parenthetic disambiguation to use; SJB should not even be on the table. Her lack of objecting is hardly relevant (we can agree to disagree on how much it would matter if she did object); I don't understand why you even bring that up. --В²C ☎ 22:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Amakuru, I understand your point and frustrations (and I never mind having discussions with you because you are always so clear and raise such good arguments, and I appreciated reading them in the RM). Primefac wrote the draft of the close and is about a year "senior" to me on the admin status, but the thoughts there incorporated my thoughts that I had expressed already, which are basically what I am laying out here. I understand your objection based on the sourcing to the natural disambiguation argument.
  You are correct that it is not the most commonly used name or even that common at all, but there was sourcing provided beyond the mere Companies House listing to show that it is used by some. This was specifically mentioned in some of the supports and is implicitly invoked in others that thought it did meet NATURALDIS. While I do seriously understand your views and took (and take) them very seriously, I don't think we can entirely discount the arguments.
  B2C, I know you have made the argument that this name doesn't exist, but it was shown pretty clearly in the RM that it does for the purposes of WP:V. Experienced editors were satisfied with the sourcing for that, and enough of them preferred the stable title (or opposed the other titles for policy based reasons) to make it so that there really wasn't any way that this could be moved. I understand your common name arguments, but there were enough people opposed to the parentheticals on policy reasons that a move didn't make sense. It isn't a vote, but the policy based reasoning for the two options that were expressed for (born 1963) or (née Macaulay) were not strong enough to overcome the support for Sarah Jane Brown.
  There were some who supported that title on IAR grounds, but there were others who had a legitimate policy disagreement with you all over NATURALDIS (namely, they thought the sourcing showed it was common enough that no one would be confused). I don't believe that those arguments can be completely cast aside, just like I don't believe that your arguments can be completely cast aside because other disagreed with you. There was not a consensus for a move after a thorough consideration of all the options by the community at large after it was advertised at CENT. I know how frustrating this is especially after you put so much work into it, but I think that we did consider all the opinions and went back and forth over the exact way it should be closed. I hope this answer sheds a bit more light for both of you as to my thought process at least, even if you disagree with parts of it. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

In ten years nobody ever produced a single source using "Sarah Jane Brown" until late into this latest RM discussion. Not being British I did not immediately understand their validity as primary sources. My assertion that the name didn't exist (not exactly what I said, but whatever) was made before I was made aware of these sources, and is probably what prompted someone finally to produce something. However, to try to draw a distinction of significance between "the name is never used in sources" (what I initially argued) and "the name is never used in reliable secondary English sources" (what I would have modified my position to be had I not been pulled into an AN/I for commenting too much there), is quite a stretch. Even now you don't seem to understand how irrelevant these tiny number of primary sources are compared to the hundreds of thousands of reliable secondary sources of which none use SJB and are secondary and reliable, as far as I can tell. But even if there are a few, again, that doesn't come close to meeting the "natural disambiguation" hurdle of "commonly called in English reliable sources". Not even close. If you didn't realize that, as you appear to not have realized, you really should consider rethinking your decision. As far as I can tell, you (the panel, not just you personally) did not appreciate that the current SJB title is not natural disambiguation, you relied heavily on counting raw !votes and not at all on counting weighted !votes with JDLI !votes filtered out to determine consensus, in particular you clearly did not discount the opposes to "wife of" none of which were based on policy or guidelines, and you did not realize the dearth of reliable secondary sources that use SJB. In short, you did not seriously look at finding the best alternative supported by policy to SJB, did you? --В²C ☎ 23:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There's clearly not a consensus supporting any of the move options: the (activist)-like options, the (wife of Gordon Brown)-like options, or the (born 1963) option. And as I said in my !vote, there's ample precedent for using uncommonly-used middle names as natural disambiguation of page titles on other articles; there's no policy reason that can't be the title. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just because you have a strong opinion that others are wrong does not mean that they are. I am completely neutral on this topic and evaluated it as I would evaluate any RM: taking into account that people can have legitimate disagreements as to whether sourcing is sufficient for guidelines and not placing my personal views in it.

I also very much disagree with your assumption that we are required by policy to seek to replace the title. The obligation is on those seeking a move to demonstrate consensus exists to move from a stable title. This is especially true when the stable title has been stable for a significant period. It isn't just a numbers game or just a policy game. The reason we have discussions is so we can see how the community thinks based on policies and guidelines, and we are supposed to take into account the differing views of people on this. If there was a single correct interpretation of policy, we wouldn't need RMs.

I get that you and Amakuru don't like the sourcing on this, but a significant number of people disagreed with you on whether that policy condition was satisfied. We don't just discount their opinions because they have a different view than you do. Nor were your opinions discounted: they had weight and they caused it to not close as a full not moved closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

We are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. That there is a dearth of usage of SJB in reliable sources is an indisputable fact and, therefore, SJB is not natural disambiguation is also a fact, by definition. That "wife of..." is not opposed on policy grounds is yet another fact (or somebody would cite the policy that supports opposing "wife of"). That there was no "consensus" (dictionary meaning) to move is also a fact. But your job is not to find "consensus"; it is to find WP:CONSENSUS, and that is very different. In particular, it means looking at facts, policies and strength of arguments. With all due respect, it appears you did none of this. How it looks to me, and you've said nothing to indicate to the contrary, is you counted raw !votes and decided there was no "consensus", and the rest is rationalization. If you're satisfied with your job on this, that's very disappointing. But you're not alone to do this; conflating "consensus" with WP:CONSENSUS is exactly why many similar years-long title disputes didn't get resolved sooner either. I have a list on my user page. --В²C ☎ 23:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I am satisfied with my reasoning here, yes. I know you aren't, but I did take into account policies and guidelines and all views. There is no starting assumption that we must move the title anywhere that would be policy based, and the point of an RM was not to find the alternative to this, but to decide if it should be moved, and if so, to where. There was not consensus to move it at all, considering all the factors, which includes policies and guidelines as the participants in the RM thought they best applied to this article. If I were to take the position you take, I should have !voted rather than closed, as I would have made my mind up to the first question (that a move was required by policy) without consulting the legitimate views of others and the legitimate objections to other titles. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I never said there was a "starting assumption that we must move the title anywhere that would be policy based". That should have been a mid-way point you discovered, through WP:CONSENSUS finding. The point is that the WP:CONSENSUS, as determined by policy-based arguments in the discussion, clearly showed that the current title was not natural disambiguation and therefore not a valid disambiguation of the topic's WP:COMMONNAME, which is "Sarah Brown" (another undisputed fact). Therefore the WP:CONSENSUS of the community (though not the "consensus" of the RM participants) was that the title should be "Sarah Brown" disambiguated parenthetically. Look, it was a complicated RM, but I think you could have handled it. You just didn't dig much. You went by surface appearances, by what the "consensus" was. I get it. In most RMs "consensus" and WP:CONSENSUS are the same, so it's easy to forget the differences. But sometimes the differences are critical, and that's what the case was here. --В²C ☎ 00:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• For the record, thanks to you (and the others) for closing this. The most important part of your close was the 2-year moratorium on move requests; it will free up Wikipedia editors to do more needed work than to keep hammering on this article and wasting time on it. Had the discussion been more clearly to move to another title; that would have been fine too, but we'd be back again in a few months requesting another move were it not for the 2-year moratorium. The title is a minor issue, and the greater issue is the WP:BIKESHED nature of the time-sink these discussions produce. I think you're bright enough to realize that had you closed the discussion a different way, the above objections would be basically identical, but with different user signatures after each point; there's no way to end this except to end it, and the moratorium is brilliant. --Jayron32 00:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Very similar claims were made in most of the multiple "no consensus" closes for the RM proposals listed below when they were closed based on trying to find "consensus" (and failing) rather than trying to find WP:CONSENSUS (like they should have), yet in each case eventually there was an RM in which WP:CONSENSUS was finally recognized, and the disputed finally resolved. By the way, neither the facts nor the arguments nor the relevant polices changed to any significant degree along the way. Unfortunately, in most cases what it took was a discussion where "consensus" as well as WP:CONSENSUS favored the proposal for a closer to "find consensus" to move, but never-the-less WP:CONSENSUS was always there and could have been found in any number of RMs earlier, just as it could have been in this RM. I am confident that had the closers in this case chosen a parenthetic disambiguation, the dispute would have been resolved. Instead, now resolution is merely delayed at least another two years. Why there is so much resistance to finding WP:CONSENSUS resolution to such disputes is baffling. But it eventually happened in all of these cases, and sooner or later it will happen here, and not with this title. Mark my words. But what do I know? I was only right in every other case like this, and wrote an essay about the odd phenomenon years ago (User:Born2cycle/Yogurt_Principle). I think it needs an update.
    • Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster → Big Ben
    • San Francisco, California → San Francisco
    • Hollywood, California → Hollywood
    • La Jolla, San Diego, California → La Jolla
    • Cork → Cork (city)
    • Sega Genesis and Mega Drive → Sega Genesis
    • Golden Hill, San Diego, California → Golden Hill, San Diego (and many similar)
    • Yoghurt → Yogurt
    • Las Vegas, Nevada → Las Vegas
    • Côte d'Ivoire → Ivory Coast
    • Public house → Pub
    • Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton
    • Kim Davis (county clerk) → Kim Davis
  • --В²C ☎ 01:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you missed the point, B2C. The title doesn't fucking matter in any way. What matters is that we stop having debates about the title. You're just pissed because you didn't win. My point is that even if you had "won", it would be irrelevant. The only important part of the close is the moratorium. It makes next to no difference what the title is, just that the interminable debates stop. If it had been moved, it wouldn't have stopped the debates, so moving would have not stopped the problem.--Jayron32 05:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the point Born2cycle was making is that if the title was moved towards a parenthetical the dispute would've ended foreverish like in the examples above rather than delayed for two years, because while people may not like the parenthetical such as (born 1968) that much, they're generally neutral/not overtly policy violating enough that no one really would care to restart the move discussions. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

That's exactly it. I don't have a crystal ball, but in my view Sarah Brown (born 1963) or some other neutral parenthetical is the long-term stable title for this article. In 10-20 years, that's where it will be, and nobody will request for it to be moved again. That disambiguator is accurate, precise, inoffensive (in a way that "wife of GB" clearly isn't), and although people don't generally know her precise year of birth, it's in the right ballpark, and will be vastly more recognizable for that reason than the current misleading title. It also has decent precedent in the Barbara Bush (born 1981) example. What we needed in this close, was either a panel bold enough to make that move now, or to give us a proper convincing reason why we're wrong when we say the current title is bad and flouts our policies. To use the graph on the right as an analogy, we're currently at the point marked "local minimum", it looks somewhat stable, and some people feel happy enough, but where we really want to be is "global minimum" - it takes some effort to get there, but when we do, the whole thing will be in a more stable state, just like all those articles B2C lists above.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Amakuru, I think you know me well enough to know I’m not going to supervote on a preference and that if I thought there was consensus for a move I would have made it (or advocated for it with the other closers since it was a panel). I don’t have a problem moving against the numbers when justified, but I don’t see how that was possible here. If I were the primary drafter I would have probably done a bit more explaining the balancing of various factors, but that’s a stylistic approach that I take when writing closes, and I still have no problem endorsing the language used in it. If another RM occurs at some point in the future and a parenthetical gains consensus, I’d have no problem moving it, but none of the options had consensus here. Anyway, as always thanks for your comments both in the RM and in this thread. They’re appreciated and highly valued . TonyBallioni (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni you don't seem to distinguish consensus of the participants and consensus of the community. In fact, given the close and everything you've written since, it appears you gave no consideration at all to consensus of the community as reflected in policy, guidelines, and conventions. The support of "Sarah Jane Brown" as "natural disambiguation" flies in the face of what WP:NATURALDIS says. The opposition to "wife of ..." is not supported by any policy or usage, and is blatant violation of NPOV. You apparently totally and completely ignored all of this in determining "consensus". No one is questioning your genuineness. You really believe there was no "consensus" to move. In fact, no one even disagrees with this. Yes, among the participants there was no consensus to move. But your job was to determine the consensus of the community as well, and you did not do that at all. --В²C ☎ 17:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

His job is to assess and close the discussion and assess the consensus thereof; there is no universal already established proper way to name the article; if there were there wouldn't have been a disagreement to begin with. The participants and the admins in question were all well aware of the guideline and policy pages you keep bringing back up; there is just a disagreement over what they mean and how they apply in this case. Because there is a disagreement, there wasn't any consensus to move it. Different is not wrong, and there are just different understandings of what those guidelines and policies mean and how to apply them. --Jayron32 17:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

You're making the same mistake he is. You're conflating disagreeing about what the title should or shouldn't be with disagreeing what policy and usage says the title should or shouldn't be. Those favoring Sarah Jane Brown and disfavoring "wife of..." disambiguation erred in thinking WP:NATURALDIS supported SJB, and didn't even try to support their opposition to "wife of" with policy. No one argued how or why NATURALDIS supports SJB - they just asserted it did. No one countered the argument in the proposal that SJB was not supported by NATURALDIS because SJB was not commonly used in sources (and no one disputed that fact). Tony did not do his job. He did not evaluate the strength of the arguments based on policy. --В²C ☎ 17:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I did. This was a community-wide RM that was advertised at CENT. That a significant number of experienced editors disagreed with your reading of the policy is highly suggestive your interpretation of the community consensus is not the only valid one. It was not my job to make the empirical judgements, it is the job of the discussion participants to apply the community consensus to a particular article and interpret how it should be applied. I will again repeat that there is absolutely zero policy basis for requiring a move here and that your frame of reference for what this RM was supposed to achieve is not in line with policy: the first question before all others is if there was either a community or local consensus to move. There wasn’t. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm not claiming that at all. What I am saying is that quoting policy is not a trump card that overcomes the differences people have in interpreting that policy. You don't get to just point at a policy page and say "Look Policy!" as though that is sufficient to win any argument. People are aware of that policy, they even agree that the policy is there and valid. What they disagree with is your interpretation of that policy. Policy does not interpet itself, and its existence does not mandate any single outcome. It can help guide discussions by recognizing common outcomes and behavioral norms at Wikipedia, so it certainly leads discussions in certain directions, but policy is not like a law of physics where the universe simply automatically obeys it. Policy requires interpretation and application, and there is the disagreement. You can't just shout "you're wrong" at people who are reading the same policies you are and reaching different conclusions. --Jayron32 18:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

That sounds great in theory guys, but there was none of that in the discussion. No one was arguing that WP:NATURALDIS should, or even could, be interpreted to support "Sarah Jane Brown". The supporters of SJB just ignored it. No one argued that there was policy opposing "wife of...", much less how to interpret some particular policy to support it. No policy was even cited to support that view. This was not a dispute about policy interpretation - this was a dispute about whether to follow or ignore policy. --В²C ☎ 18:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'd support a WP:MRV on this one. No offence to the closers TonyBallioni, SkyWarrior and Primefac who were confronted with a hell of a job, but seeing a lack of "policy-based reasoning for moving a page" (there was plenty of that nonetheless and basing the outcome exclusively on policy-founded !votes would have shown something completely different), and then starting to misrepresent policy ("WP:NCDAB states that natural disambiguation is preferred" – it doesn't, or, at least, the current article title does not conform to the minimal requirements for natural disambiguation which include "... commonly used in English ..." as made explicit in the WP:MIDDLENAME guidance) shows a lack of experience in this type of closures (and does indeed amount to a supervote). Not less important, several procedural irregularities were mentioned by participants in the RM: the closers didn't even address the question whether these irregularities might have influenced the outcome. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • See my responses to B2C: just because you think policy mandates one thing, doesn’t mean that others who disagree with you are wrong. Others considered your arguments on this and disagreed with your interpretation of the policies in this case and made their own arguments based on the same policies and sourcing. One of the biggest points of an RM is to determine how we apply policies and guidelines to specific articles given the empirical data. Your arguments were heard, but so were the arguments of those who had a different view than you. In terms of experience closing RMs, Amakuru can tell you that I’m pretty experienced in this realm (even though he disagrees with this closure). TonyBallioni (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes I read the discussion above, and that's why I proposed DRV in my first comment: reasoning on this page seemed to have already come to a dead end before I started to participate. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Thats your perogative, like I said to B2C, it’d likely be a bigger mess than the RM itself and at best end up as no consensus to overturn (and like Amakuru said, likely end up endorse). I think I’ve been pretty clear with my personal reasoning here, I think it’s policy based, and I’m familiar enough with RMs and closing RMs to know that there wasn’t a reasonable outcome that ended with a page move after that discussion. I’ve closed plenty of complicated RMs before, and while this one was more complicated, the outcome was pretty clear at the end. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Please don't put words in my mouth: I don't contest the no-move result (although, frankly, keeping it open somewhat longer before closing would have been a viable option too). So please stop your straw man argumentation, it doesn't impress me for one bit. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• (talk page stalker) Procedurally, the RM was a shitshow, but that was largely due to the efforts of people complaining now about the outcome. I understand the argument why a parenthetial disambiguation would be better, though I still don't agree with it. I don't have the slightest idea how there's supposed to be a consensus for "wife of Gordon Brown" as the disambiguator, apart from the fact that some very noisy people seem obsessed with it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Re. "... largely due to the efforts of people complaining now about the outcome" – I don't see those most responsible for WP:FORUMSHOPping, inappropriate WP:CANVASSing, WP:ASPERSIONS being cast around, etc, complaining here about the outcome. The unusual format of the RM is hardly a policy breach in the same sense. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unblock leoleo7495

What i would do in the future will be to bring information and to correct if there are errors if necessary in user talk not in the talk page of the article unlike i used to to.leoleo7495(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

leoleo7495, Acroterion was the blocking administrator, so they would be better to talk to than me. I just declined the unblock request. From what I recall, the issue was that you were using the talk page as a forum for disputes over which animal was better and the like, and not using it to discuss things that were relevant to a Wikipedia article. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Revert

Tony, I saw that you reverted me. Don't worry, I won't touch your revert. However, I disagree that the topic ban is clear at all. Sandstein's link goes to, just like I said, a section that's been archived and noted as "NOT AN AE BLOCK" therefore, there's nothing to support the topic ban. Further consensus on the AN page shows SVG did nothing worthy of the block to begin with, therefore there should be no reason for a ban. I disagree that this shouldn't be discusses and left to consensus, but I'm a bit biased as I'm under one myself, so like I said, I'll leave it alone.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 14:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi KoshVorlon, Sandstein unblocked MapSGV. This was his regular non-AE admin action. He specifically stated that he was lifting the block to be replaced with a topic ban. He then followed through and made it an AE topic ban, which he logged at the AELOG for 2018. AE actions are taken upon the discretion of individual administrators, and do not require consensus to impose. The editor who has been sanctioned is free to appeal to either AE or AN, but only they are allowed to make the appeal. Other editors are not. See Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_by_sanctioned_editors, which I quoted on your talk page. I reverted your reopening of that thread, because it was asking for a review of a sanction that no longer existed and because you don't have the ability to ask for the review of another editor's sanctions. If they want to appeal, they should do it on their own, and I would suggest them doing it at WP:AE, though AN is an option. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Please don't.

Resolved

- clearly, I am not on the same page as the community on this one. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

With regards to this, you are a brand new admin of well less than six months. Nominators should be experienced and respected admins with an excellent track record. Bluntly, you do not fit that profile. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no requirement that nominators be experienced admins, or admins, or experienced. As I'm sure you well know, there have been self nominations which have succeeded, and nominations by some of our most experienced users with access above sysop which have failed. To be blunt, I'm not sure it's necessary to be so blunt when sharing what is essentially only your personal opinion. GMG^talk 12:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, first, you will notice that I never said I was going to offer to nominate Lourdes. I said I was intending to email her. That email was going to encourage her to run, and explicitly encourage her to find an experienced nominatior. It likely would have included the line “I’d be fine nominating, but I’m sure you can find someone much better than me.” Also, in terms of nominations in general Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Joe Roe was the first successful RfA after my own. Joe did all the heavy lifting there to be sure, but to my knowledge at least, my being a nominator doesn’t seem to have been held against him. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Tony, with the most substantial tenure, experience, contributions and faith of the community you have here, you'd be the best nominator even if you weren't an administrator. I'm not quite sure why rndude wrote what he did, but I don't agree with his understanding of who can be nominators, and I'm confident the community too doesn't. Lourdes 12:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't !vote on JoeRoe's adminship as I don't know anything about them. I don't vote on editors RfAs I know nothing about, or where I don't have a strong opinion one way or another. E.g. I don't know Lourdes, so I'm not voting on their RfA. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Nominators should be experienced and respected admins with an excellent track record 100% not true. Nominators can and should be anyone, and have frequently been non-sysop users. In fact, I think it'd be better if more nominators weren't sysops. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd be less bothered by a non-sysop nom, than a fresh admin nom. It's the fresh admin bit that bothers me here. I'm not saying TonyBallioni is a bad admin, just that a fresh admin pulling in new admins impacts on my view negatively. Very negatively. I'm just one person though. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I can assure you that you are in the very small minority on this one. Nihlus 13:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

"Nominators should be experienced and respected admins with an excellent track record" smacks somewhat of an attack on Tony's record. Anyway, that sort of statement is probably better off in a personal opinion essay than as an accusatory statement of fact on an editor's talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Meh, I know how WikiPolitics works. There are certainly better nominators out there than me. I'll be the absolute first person to admit that, and frequently do when people ask me about RfA. The statement about new admins not being nominators isn't really true though, at least within the last 18 months or so. After his own RfA, TNT did a several successful nominations, and those seem to have turned out fine. I think you can have a good discussion as to the impact the choice of nominator(s) has on an RfA, but generally, being a newer admin doesn't seem to have a huge negative impact unless that admin also has a bad reputation elsewhere (which who knows, I might. There are certainly people who don't like me around.) Anyway, all the best. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm not interested in WikiPolitics. That's why I addressed you directly. I chose to present my concern to you, rather than drop it on a talk page (I mean talk page other than your own). – And to you. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I know of few who fit the desirable profiles and combined qualities as Tony and Lourdes, both of whom I've found to be knowledgeable, patient, willing collaborators who served well in the trenches, and with the kind of fortitude and humility we seek in our administrators. Tony has proven to be an excellent admin right out of the box, and I have no doubt that we'll see the same from Lourdes. We could use 100 more just like them. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)    

Agreed. Mr rnddude is entitled to his opinion, but like others here I don't share it. Tony and others should be positively encouraged to nominate suitable candidates, as indeed Lourdes has proved to be, because by all accounts we are facing an admin shortfall these days. If I understand correctly, the concern here is that having gained the bit, Tony now plans to to head-hunt and recruit other admins sympathetic to some hypothetical nefarious aim of his, and wreak havoc on our wonderful encyclopedia. But even if this highly bizarre hypothesis were actually true, a nomination does not an automatic admin make. The community would vet and scrutinise each nominee as they always do, and the candidate would be promoted or otherwise on their own merits.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, if there is such a thing as an admin shortfall, then it's not resolved by stopping nominations...if the editor (not admin) is experienced, that's all that will matter. In any case, potential admin recruits know not to accept noms off anyone but: a noob making a nom will—almost always—be declined and G6'd sharpish. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Cat-holic question

Excuse me. Catholic. This source states that this guy was the "color bearer" for the American Federation of Catholic Societies. I'm inclined to think that's a reference to the figurative use of modern day standard bearer. But, I honestly don't know if that might have some specialized meaning in Catholic theology or social activism. GMG^talk 17:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Also don't think it is something I haven't come across as it doesn't appear to be a derivative of any Latin term, which suggests it likely isn't a Church office. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Move review

Hi, while closing the discussion on Requested move 22 February 2018, relating the title of general article on anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment, you decided to rename the article to Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians, in spite of fact that during the entire discussion there was no response to questions that were raised regarding the consequent change of scope (reduction to "persecution" only), and also there was no clear consensus on the final style of the title. As it was stated several times during the discussion, similar denominational articles like Anti-Catholicism or Anti-Protestantism have not been subjected to such reduction, since Persecution of Catholics correctly redirects to Anti-Catholicism as a wider concept, and Persecution of Protestants correctly redirects to Anti-Protestantism, also a wider concept. Therefore, applying different criteria to similar denominational article on anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment would constitute a clear example of double standards. That is also part of a much wider problem, since earlier in February a failed attempt was made to delete the entire article (see: Articles for deletion: Anti-Orthodoxy), not to mention numerous disruptive edits and recent deletions of entire sections. Clearly, there are several important issues regarding this article, and the attempted reduction of its scope is one of them. As it was stated during the discussion, such reduction would be not only unjustified but also quite problematic, since the term "Anti-Eastern Orthodox" has been adopted by the FBI as official designation for negative sentiments and animosities towards Eastern Orthodoxy (see more than 800 hits on Google Search), and that term is commonly used (see more than 1800 hits on Google Search). In light of that, correct title for the article in question would be "Anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment" and such title would reflect the full scope of its content. Also, such title would be consistent with similar denominational titles, like Anti-Catholicism, Anti-Protestantism and others. So please, would your reconsider the final conclusion? I am dressing you on this subject, because such procedure is indicated on the Wikipedia:Move review page. Sorabino (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorabino, I stand by the close. As you said, there was a clear consensus to move somewhere, and this seemed like the version that was the most consensus version. In terms of change of scope, that can be addressed through talk page discussion and possible splitting of the article, but while I think you had a good point, it doesn't change that there was a consensus to move (NOTAVOTE and whatnot, but one person repeatedly making the same point isn't enough to prevent a move from going forward, even if it is a good point.) Those supporting the move were unconvinced by your arguments, and the previous AfD was also highly supportive of renaming. Anything that needs to be changed because of the scope can be sorted out on the talk page, which is fine and not really part of the RM process. I understand how frustrating and complex religious RMs can be, but I think that this was the best close based on that discussion. I'm fine if you want to take this to a move review. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no doubt that some change of title was necessary, but still there are several issues regarding the final conclusion, and the entire discussion process. First, there was not only "one" user who objected the proposed change of title style and reduction of the scope. Second, reduction proposal to "persecution" only was not explained by a single word during the entire discussion, and all questions regarding that question were left unanswered. So, there was no discussion on the subject! Third, proposed change of style was actively supported by some users who only few days ago voted for the deletion of the entire article. Fourth, regarding your proposal to split the article, that is a fine example of unnecessary problems created now by the new title style. Since you mentioned "frustrating and complex religious" issues, and you participate in Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism, would you reduce Anti-Catholicism to Persecution of Catholics, and would you split sections on Persecution of Catholics from Anti-Catholicism? Since no-one is creating new problems there, please lets not create such problems regarding the general article on anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment. Sorabino (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorabino, I read the whole discussion, there were those who objected, but as a whole, the consensus favoured a move to the Persecution title, and there was not a consensus that the issues you raised were enough to prevent that move (and there was at least some willingness to discuss a change of scope.) I think it was strong enough for a moved close, but even if it weren't, per WP:RMCI, the next best close would have been consensus to move, no consensus to title, in which case I would have still moved it to this title per the instructions. If you want to start a new RM proposing a different title to test consensus between the current title and one you favour, I think that would be fine, and likely be quicker than a move review, but I also have no problem if you want a move review. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there was consensus to move, but no real consensus on the new title. And thank you for reading the entire discussion again. I hope that you noticed the total lack of any response to questions regarding the reasons for proposed reduction of scope to "persecution" only. Even those users who proposed and supported such reduction did not want to state their arguments, in spite of being asked several times. I also hope that you noticed that no-one denied the basic validity of official FBI terminology, that uses the style "anti-Eastern Orthodox". And now, after having no real discussion on those crucial subjects, we have new title that reduces the scope of the article and creates new problems. This is one of those cases when a very important issue, regarding here the general article on negative sentiments towards an entire denomination, is discussed by only a handful of users, during few days, while it is clear that such complex issues require wider participation and longer discussion. That is why I would favor "move review" as a next step, because I think that wider community should take notice of this entire affair regarding the recent attempt to delete this article, in relation to consequent reduction of its scope and deletion of entire sections by the same users who originally tried to kill the article. Sorabino (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorabino, that's fine. Feel free to request one. I get your objections, but having read the discussion three times now, I don't see a different plausible outcome based on the discussion. Like I said, I really do appreciate your frustrations (religious naming questions can be very complex, and they are often the least bad option rather than the best). Anyway, hope I've been somewhat helpful, even if it's not the answer you want. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, I initiated the procedure for the move review. Sorabino (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Got the ping and made a statement there. Thanks for letting me know. All the best, TonyBallioni (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Move review for Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians

An editor has asked for a Move review of Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Sorabino (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)