Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:10, 11 August 2015

2015 August

Bongbong Marcos

Bongbong Marcos (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

I would like to request a move review because the RM was closed by Kharkiv07 and normally, a non-admin closure could be warranted after the week period but there was no discussion at all. Seeing as the previous discussion on that page consists of mostly of opposing comments, and no new arguments were really brought up in the new section I find that this RM was not closed properly. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 20:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm somewhat disappointed this wasn't discussed with the closer, as explicitly required as part of the instructions for opening a move review. Additionally, the requested move was closed two months ago and, while there is no set limit for seeking a review, this seems quite stale. Why not just open a new move request? Calidum T|C 23:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - 2 months is a bit long for a move review especially without any apparent discussion in the mean time. Especially as other editors made changes to the article during that time, so would have had a chance to object or raise concerns.Also while it is best that closers consider wider policies etc—especially any explicitly mentioned; they aren't really bound by old move discussions—two and a half years in this case.
  I suggest that it you believe that there is reason for the page to be move back or to another title to put together a new requested move. That said while 2 months is a bit stale in this case, given that the result of moved, another requested move right now might be a bit soon. You should referencing any facts etc. that you want considered such as providing data showing which name is more common in any new RM. PaleAqua (talk) 01:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse as any old uncontroversial uncontested move. Sure, it may be questionable, so start a new discussion on the talk page. No problem with the RM process. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Closer's comment: There are several things here that I'd like to comment on, first this is extremely stale and, while I'm not sure if there's a statute of limitations for these things, I'd just open a new RM. Also, in the future when opening a move review, it's proper to discuss it with the closer. That being said, in response to your comments, the RM did go through the whole week period, with unanimous consensus that it should be moved. You said that the discussion above had a different outcome, but you must remember that consensus can change. Finally, with response to the "no discussion" remark that you made, I'd like to quote from the closing instructions: "no minimum participation is required for requested moves". All in all, I personally believe that this was a fair, policy-based close. Kharkiv07 (T) 02:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Gangsta (manga)

Gangsta (manga) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

I am requesting a review of the close and subsequent move of Gangsta. by Kwamikagami, who closed the move discussion for the page on 4 August, leaving the following comment: "Moved per WP guidelines and multiple precedents with similarly styled names." Since the discussion had been opened on 15 July by George Ho, eight editors had supported a move to Gangsta (manga), four supported a move to Gangsta. (manga), and twelve opposed the move. (By my count. Please correct me if I have counted wrong.) This is, in my view, a very clear case of no consensus, which, per WP:RMCI, should result in no action taken. In fact, it demonstrates that a significant portion of those who weighed in felt that the period was an essential part of the title. Given that, I left a message for Kwamikagami here (permalink) asking them to reconsider their close. After they replied that they wouldn't object to my opening a move review, and after another editor weighed in agreeing that the move was poorly made, I decided to bring this here. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment GS seems to be suggesting this was a vote. I went by the strength of the arguments, WP:AT, and CONSISTENCY. I have no problem with my move being reversed or changed (really, I was just trying to help clear out the move-request backlog), but bear in mind the discussion in the thread following the move request (Talk:Gangsta (manga)#Good example for WP:AT?), where people raise the possibility of modifying WP:AT or SMALLDETAILS to reflect any consensus to keep the article at "Gangsta.", and the consequent possibility of moving any number of other articles about albums etc. that are styled with a full stop/period. (Several are mentioned in the two threads.)

I'm not watching this thread, so please ping me if anyone wants me to comment further. — kwami (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I'm not at all suggesting it was a vote. I'm merely presenting some statistics to give a general idea of the debate. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn, supervote and inappropriate closure. The closer just ignored the policy-based arguments opposing the move and moved the page to his favorite title. As far as I can see, there were good arguments in both parts, but the proposal to move the page just failed to got consensus. Kwami should had just voted and not closed such a controversial discussion. Cavarrone 17:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Really, I could care less which name is used. You have no reason to assume bad faith. I moved it according to my reading of WP guidelines and the consensus demonstrated by multiple other articles. You may be correct to overturn the move, but you are wrong to cast aspersions. — kwami (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse – I suppose my endorsement is predictable , but please note that a very similar example, "skate.", is listed explicitly in the MOS:TM guideline, along two others that are somewhat similar (Se7en and Alien), and the outcome is consistent with the other recent outcomes with the same issue of the inclusion of a full stop in a name – Melody (Japanese singer), Janet (album), Shakira (album). And the quality of the sourcing in the article was rather questionable. All of this was pointed out in the move discussion prior to its closure. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse First, in the interest of full disclosure, both Cavarrone and BarrelProof participated in the move discussion; I didn't, but found this while watching Kwami's talk page.

It seems to me that G S Palmer's reasoning that it was no consensus is because of the !vote totals. Consensus isn't based on votes but on interpretation of policy. While more people opposed the move, I don't think the arguments were very strong. In ictu oculi's comments were a pretty good argument as to why periods are disfavored as dabs and that they were uncommon (note that the band fun. who won two grammies don't even use a period on their page to disambiguate despite that being how they stylize their name). Second, a large amount of both supports and opposes were I (don't) like it. And above Kwami said that he used the parallel discussion at WT:Article titles to determine more global consensus which seems there to show that periods aren't a good title dab (I'd even venture to say that that discussion has more and better participation than the one in question here). So while more people !voted for oppose there, more globally, and with proper weight applied to the arguments in the discussion, I don't think the closure was unreasonable. Wugapodes (talk) 02:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: I am not suggesting that the process was a vote, which you would have seen if you read my above comment to kwami. That being said, if enough people take one side of a debate, it should be considered as to why they are taking that side - personally I believe the opposers had better arguments, but I'm biased. And when ignoring the majority in a close, one should at least have the courtesy to write a well-reasoned closing statement. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 09:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus I opposed the move. No reasonable administrator would have closed the move request as consensus to move, because there wasn't one; Kwami's closure amounts to a WP:SUPERVOTE. Both sides made strong arguments, and the oppose side enjoyed greater support among participants. Consensus might not be a vote, but that doesn't mean the will of the majority should be outright ignored. Calidum T|C 04:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. It is not clear what WP:Supervote claims refer to. The closer's "guidelines and multiple precedents with similarly styled names" was evident in the discussion. If anything, the close should be criticised for its brevity. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn: Most of the supporters of the parenthetic disambiguation are misreading MOS:TM and supposing that it somehow overrides WP:COMMONNAME policy. Reliable sources consistently get this work's title correct, as Gangsta., and this as sufficient enough difference per WP:DIFFPUNCT. The cases of skate. and Alien and Se7en at MOS:TM are not similar, because reliable sources do not consistently refer to them with these stylizations, but more often refer to them as Skate magazine, Alien 3, and Seven. While I believe the closer meant well and was trying to weight policy arguments appropriately, Kwamikagami did not notice this failure to properly balance a policy and a guideline correctly. This is, purely, a WP:RS matter when you come down to it (an independent, secondary-sources RS matter). It's unnecessary to uncivilly accuse Kwamikagami of a supervote. That snide accusation gets bandied about way too often here. Not every minor error in judgement is some kind of nefarious machination.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  14:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn (no consensus). SMcCandlish's summary is a pretty good one. Disregarding the disambiguation question for a second, there was a clear consensus that the full stop should be used in the title – as noted, that is how the vast majority of reliable sources portray it. MOS:TM does actually cover this by saying "unless a significant majority of reliable sources that are independent of the subject consistently include the special character when discussing the subject". So if there was a consensus to move, which I disagree with but will get to later, it should have been to Gangsta. (manga). On the question of whether the full stop is enough disambiguation, this is definitely no consensus. The voters were roughly numerically split and the arguments for and against were equally valid. The reason for this is because, as anyone who has followed RM recently will know, SMALLDETAILS/DIFFPUNCT is a mess at the moment and needs to be sorted out at the policy level (where discussion is ongoing) rather than with a piecemeal approach through RM. As the policy currently stands, both interpretations used in this discussion are valid and it is impossible to declare one more correct and hence have a consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 10:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn (no consensus). Per SMcCandlish and Jenks24 above. I especially agree with the issue that the SMALLDETAILS / DIFFPUNCT needs to be hammered out and it seems like while the larger issue is being resolved it is hard to see a consensus, especially in cases being explicitly discussed in the larger context. PaleAqua (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn and re-open. I'm not sure that any result is logical; I oppose the result in practice but support the parentheses, and many other people had different opinions. I wish the closer had simply had the wherewithal to contribute to the discussion. Red Slash 02:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:Don't feed the divas

WP:Don't feed the divas (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

I am requesting a close review of JzG (talk · contribs)'s closing of this move request at WP:Don't feed the divas (WP:DIVA) and his subsequent move of the page to WP:Don't be high maintenance. I challenged JzG's close on his talk page here and was left with the impression that he made a SUPERVOTE. This seems to be an improper close per WP:RMCI, so I am requesting a review by the community.- MrX 17:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment by proponent of the rename: In what way is it alleged to be "an improper close per WP:RMCI"? There was clearly a consensus to rename. This was determined the first time the RM ran; it was relisted because it wasn't clear what to rename it to. While some people liked WP:TANTRUM at that stage, it was objected to increasingly, on at least three grounds: tone, easy confusion with WP:PRAM, and it's just a shortcut with no actual title. After it was relisted, the most favored name was the one it was eventually moved to. PS: This was not even among my initially favored potential names, but someone else's idea; I have no "vested interest" in defending it. It simply appears to be the winner that emerged, from a discussion that most participants were already tired of because of all the re-re-repeated "this RM is just politically correct nonsense!" yelling.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  17:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  My assertion is that consensus was not properly weighed and that there was no actual consensus for a move. There was no explanation of how consensus was determined in the close itself, or from JzG when I asked on his talk page. WP:RMCI states "In article title discussions, no consensus has two defaults: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept...." That would seem to apply here. - MrX 18:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  Um, except two closers in a row agreed there was a consensus to move. Diffs:  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  02:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse close Seems to be a reasonable close based on the arguments. I don't see an issue with using a name that came up during the course of discussion given the strength of the arguments moving away previous name. PaleAqua (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• Closer's comment: There is unambiguous consensus against the "divas" name. Several competitors were proposed, all of which would require a greater or lesser degree of refactoring of the essay, so I went with the one that had a proper draft of the requisite refactored content. People are free to move the result to some other title, just not back to where it was, so there's actually nothing to review here. Guy (Help!) 18:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  I find it puzzling that would say there is unambiguous consensus against WP:DIVA. In raw !votes, there are 7 oppose and 9 supports, with arguments being roughly the same quality on each side of the debate. One of those opposes (Flyer22) said she would support WP:TANTRUM or WP:HISSYFIT. There are three comments in support of "high maintenance" ( SMcCandlish, Ihardlythinkso, and DrChrissy) and two opposed (WhatamIdoing and Cuchullain). Doc9871 stated that HME is the best option he's seen so far, but the bulk of his comments seem to lean toward WP:DIVA. The only way I could see this as consensus is if you ignored most of the comments from editors who opposed any move.- MrX 19:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  I also find it puzzling that a nearly even "vote" is interpreted by anyone as "consensus" for or against anything. I would be sorry to learn that discussing possible alternatives in a good-faith effort to find something that might be even better had been interpreted as supporting a move at all. For the record, I specifically oppose the "high maintenance" idea on the grounds that it is verifiably a gendered insult, and if the main purpose was to avoid "diva" on the grounds that it's a gendered insult, then moving to a different gendered insult does not solve the problem. (Also, high maintenance is wrong: "diva" behavior is about demanding that others pay attention to your emotional problems; being high maintenance is about expending resources on your appearance or image. It's the difference between pitching a fit if you are not the center of fawning attention and spending half your paycheck on haircuts or cosmetics. A person might do both, but the two behaviors are separable.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  To interject: a) RM isn't a head-count vote; b) two closers in a row concluded that the pro and con arguments were not of "roughly the same quality" or would not have concluded there was a consensus to move; c) even the most vociferous opposer, Doc, himself thought "high maintenance" was the direction to go in if it were to be moved; and d) WP:TANTRUM or WP:HISSYFIT are not names, but shortcuts (both of which redirect to this page). So, what again is the actual issue to review here?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  02:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

  The purpose of a move review is to determine if the close was reasonable, or whether it was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Misplaced Pages common practice, policies, or guidelines. I don't know what you mean by two closers—there was only one closer. There's no explanation in the close statement that even addresses consensus, or the relative strength or weakness of the arguments.- MrX 02:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

  Ping WhatamIdoing: I know what WP:MR is for; that doesn't answer what this MR is for. If you don't like "two closers", "two consensus assessors", then. Covered this in detail elsewhere. I also think your interpretation of "high maintenance" is idiosyncratic; it definitely doesn't reflect the usage I'm familiar with, which is entirely about attention-demanding, overly emotional behavior patterns. Sources: Forbes, Urban Dictionary. Note: Both of these indicate the term is used generically, not just of women.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  09:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

  I think that you meant to ping User:MrX for half of that.
  Also, did you actually read all of those sources? The Forbes source has a section on the money woes of high-maintenance employees. The very first definition at Urban Dictionary is about money ("expensive"), and nearly all of them directly include a statement about money. This website says that the claim that "high maintenance women are selfish and money-obsessed" is common, and there are thousands of similar sources .
  Also, these words are not used equally for men and women. See this and this, or even see Urban Dictionary, if you like that as a source: "low maintenance ...Usually male, as most women are high maintenance." The very source that you claim says that "the term is used generically" says exactly the opposite. The Dictionary of American Slang gives only gendered examples: " high-maintenance hair/ high-maintenance girlfriend". Sure, you can say that some cars are high maintenance (cars are also traditionally referred to by female pronouns, like ships), and pets, and it can be applied to men (just like all insulting words for women can be applied to men, so that you can insult their character and dismiss their masculinity all in one go), but it is definitely a gendered term. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

  So it's sometimes used in a gendered way, sometimes not. I think we'll have a hard time finding something that can never be used in a gendered way. I care less about the exact name than about rescoping this away from an attack page model. I used "model"; that's often a gendered word. I guess I should go slap myself. Oh! That's gendered, too, since women slap more often while men punch. .  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  07:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• In terms of process, I endorse this as a reasonable close given the discussion. I think it was plain that there was consensus against the previous title. Since MrX brought up my participation, I did oppose "high maintenance", but not as strongly as I opposed "diva", and I think that can be gathered from my other comments. Both terms are unnecessarily gendered, which is a problem given Misplaced Pages's perpetual struggle to recruit and retain women, though "Diva" is worse as it's always aimed at women. Though I don't think this is a good title - I prefer WP:TANTRUM - it's a net positive and JzG was well within his admin discretion to make this call.--Cúchullain /c 19:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  I disagree that diva is always aimed at women. In my experience, it's usually aimed at a gay man (and it's often a label applied by the man himself: "I'm sorry if I'm being a bit of a diva, but...") WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  Thank you for your clarification Cuchullain. I agree with WhatamIdoing that diva is frequently used to refer to gay men, although usually lightheartedly.- MrX 20:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

That certainly doesn't make it more appropriate for use in a Misplaced Pages essay.--Cúchullain /c 20:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

+1. It just increases the offensiveness level in multiple ways.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  02:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It's no more offensive than any most of the alternatives offered, and only when it's used in an argument to discredit another editor. - MrX 12:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Which, as Doc indicates in multiple places in the discussion, is the entire point of the page as it was then named and written, a purpose he defended as valid, helping editors ID and shun "divas". But what I meant in my above comment was that if we posit that it's a slur used against women, the fact that it turns out to be a slur that can be used against gay men, too, doesn't make it less of a slur, just liable to be interpreted as one by more editors, and liable to be perceived as as a slur more often, since it has an additional connotation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  13:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand your basic logic, but I dispute that it's a slur, at least in American culture. In fact, it's more a term of endearment. Are you aware that there are television programs with "diva" in their title? Lifetime's Drop Dead Diva, E!'s Total Divas, and TV One's Hollywood Divas; there's Diva TV, Diva Universal, and Diva (Asia TV channel); There's the Diva Cup, a product marketed to women, and Diva Magazine, "monthly glossy newsstand magazine for lesbians and bi women in the UK". As far as gay culture—I can't speak for all gay men, but I can speak for a great many of them who would laugh at the suggestion that "diva" is a slur. The contention that "diva" is widely-regarded as offensive strikes me as absurd.- MrX 14:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Several of those are a different usage, closer to the operatic meaning. But all of this is really beside the point. Possible offensiveness was only one of the rationales; the principle one is that we don't need an attack page, which is what that page is for. What would be useful would be an advice page on behaviors to avoid in this vein. WP interests are not served by a "how to peg other people as some alleged personality type you can shun and be a jackass toward".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  14:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

So you don't find it offensive. Kind of beside the point as to why it's inappropriate, let alone how the RM was closed out of process.--Cúchullain /c 15:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

No. That's a pretty obvious mischaracterization of what I wrote. My assertion is that "diva" is widely-regarded as unoffensive, and I've given plenty of examples. Where are the examples of it being "inappropriate" and where is the Misplaced Pages policy to back it up?- MrX 15:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

We discussed that in the RM, and I explained my position again here: the fact that it's a gendered insult and is used on a website that's had a terrible time attracting and keeping women, and that we lose nothing significant by changing it. But of course the point of a move review isn't to rehash the move discussion, it's to discuss whether the close was reasonable; it was.--Cúchullain /c 23:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. No reader would ever just look at the title of the essay only, walking away thinking that WP discriminates against women with this term, without bothering to readi the first sentence, that very clearly states that WP divas are quite definitely of both sexes. The close was just unwarranted PC handwringing. Doc talk 03:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Cool story, but it says nothing about how the close was so out of process in terms of WP:RMCI that it must be overturned.--Cúchullain /c 12:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It does speak against the closer's claim of unambiguous consensus, and of your perception that "diva" is as gendered as you think it is. While some spoke of gender discrimination of diva, a few others spoke against that, and most did not engage. I did not regard the gender discrimination case as having been seriously made, and think that Diva is read in line with its original intent. Some of the opposers cited "getting straight to an important point" and the advantages of being curt, while others cited offensiveness / political correctness. I don't agree that there was a consensus, and in particular feel that the discussion was decidedly lacking opinions from female editors. I recognized User:WhatamIdoing, but her input was tentative. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it speaks only to the claim that the term is gendered - or rather, that it "discriminates against women", which wasn't my point - and thus just rehashes the RM. It says nothing about the consensus. To get back to that, it was pretty clear that there was consensus to move away from the former name, and the closer was well within their remit to close as they did.--Cúchullain /c 13:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn (no consensus). There was a strong current of straight opposition, and less support for any suggestion including the one implemented. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn (no consensus). Very predictable outcome, but hardly the way things should be done around here. Absolutely no consensus for this poor rename. Doc talk 00:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • If the outcome was predictable, that's a clear indication there wasn't a lack of consensus, by definition.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  14:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
    • SMcCandlish, that's a remarkably illogical assertion. One can easily predict a lack-of-consensus outcome. For example, we can easily predict "no consensus" for any RFA reform discussion, without even knowing what the specific proposed reform is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
      • @WhatamIdoing: That's reaching and non-responsive. Doc isn't talking about a hypothetical outcome, but the specific one that was arrived at; you're comparing imaginary apples and very real oranges. The fact that he thinks it was predictable because there's some evil p.c. conspiracy to censor him and ruin WP and is immaterial; he concedes that he knew what the outcome would be. Its disingenuous and fallacious to simultaneously declare that the result was as he predicted and yet also deny that the result was in fact the result and should thus be overturned. Note how this relates strongly to his other doublethink pattern, repeated multiple times here and at the RM: This essay should just be deleted, but simultaneously it should be kept as long as it's his "right" version. And another one: He was adamant that I write an alternative version of the essay – he demanded this numerous times – and is now apoplectic that anyone might prefer it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  08:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Strong neutral Obscure project page whose name is inconsequential, either name would have been fine in any event, and there's really nothing to be gained by moving it back. --Jayron32 01:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus. I don't see how someone could find a consensus to move the page to the high maintenance title unless they went in there looking to do just that; as Smokey Joe noted, there was significant opposition to the move. And several supporters of the move said they wanted it at a less sexist title. "High maintenance," however, is a phrase used almost exclusively in reference to women whereas diva is used to desribe (straight) men -- so those conditional supports should not be viewed as supporting a more sexist title. In my opinion, "prima donna" would work just as well and I'm not sure why that seemed to get ignored during the move discussion. Calidum T|C 02:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

  Knee-jerk PC rulings ensure that no imaginary toes are potentially stepped on, while eroding due process. No consensus to move this article existed before the move. Dreadful. Doc talk 06:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It was not knee-jerk anything, there was a thoughtful debate. And whenever you write PC? Try replacing it with "treating people with a bit of common decency" and see how well it reads. There was an unambiguous consensus against the previous title, the new title was a case of pick one that works, and that was the one for which content was already done. You're welcome to move it to any other title apart from the one that consensus showed to be inappropriate, which is the only one for which admin tools would be required. Guy (Help!) 08:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Doing so while this review is open would be disruptive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It would need another RM (to determine the name, not to determine whether to rename) since we already had a double-length RM that was reviewed by two independent ANRFC peeps concluding there's a consensus to move, and the title that pretty clearly emerged was this one. There seems to be a mistaken view among some respondents here that an RM consensus only ever equates to a numeric majority on one exact name. This is not so and never has been so. PS: The principal opposer, Doc, has repeatedly suggested in the RM that the entire page should just be deleted rather that be subjected to what he calls "political correction". If that's not "knee-jerk", I'm not sure what could qualify.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  09:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's a thought. Actually read and carefully consider the Opposes instead of backslapping each other for a another successful PC patrol cleanup correction feel-good smackdown. Actually consider that maybe your opinion is not (get ready for it) actually "consensus". Thanks for playing. Doc talk 06:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "backslapping". I think the opposes were carefully considered. Yours amounted to dismissal of everyone's concerns (even the ones that had nothing to do with offensiveness) as just "PC nonsense", sour-grapes suggestions to delete the page, denial that anything could be wrong with the page, insistence that the people targeted by the essay are some kind of psychological "type" who can't be reached in any way, justification of what amounts to an attack page on the basis that it "helps" other editors identify this "type", refusal to provide any evidence of anything you were insisting was true, avoidance of addressing a single issue or concern raised by anyone, lots of hand-waving accusations and indignation about an essay you feel proprietary about but wrote very little of, and similar lines of "reasoning". It seems perfectly valid to not give such views much weight in that discussion. No one's back needs any slapping to make evidence-before-one's-eyes observations of this sort.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  13:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn - No consensus The only way this could stand would be if the oppose votes were found to be of less weight than the support votes - and there is no real justification provided for that - there are potentially a number of reasons that could be the case, but no argument was made for them and even then it would be marginal. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

So, the closer simply adjusting their closing statement to be more explicit about the analysis should resolve that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  09:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It would certainly get rid of the 'supervote' comments and should have been done in the first place. But to be honest I dont think it would be strong enough to forge a consensus about it. A number of support votes concentrate on it being sexist, a number of oppose votes point out in their opinion it isnt sexist. To disregard/place lower weight would require a determination that it is intrinsically sexist to describe someone as a Diva. Given the amount of gay men and straight women who revel in being described/self labelled a Diva, its a pretty poor argument that its sexist using it in this context. Some people might feel it is sexist, that does not make it so. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Why would it require any such "intrinsic" analysis? A general perception is sufficient. Any time a large group of people are apt to find an epithet offensive, I'm afraid that defenders of its usage and deniers of its offensiveness don't have much of a leg to stand on. I have relatives who still called African-Americans "colored" and "blackfolk" among other terms, and they're convinced they're in the right in doing so. They're not. And your approach here does not compute, because gay males as a insider thing repurpose various misogynstic epithets like "bitch" in a playful way for their own purposes. Such usage is subcultural jargon and has no bearing on this essay, its meaning, or its perception outside such a context, and in the general encyclopedic editing community context.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  12:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

There is equally a general perception is that it is not offensive or sexist. As for the rest of your examples, thats blatant otherstuff. To disregard someone's opinion/rationale for voting would require that the opinion is either obviously or provably false/non credible. "I think it should be moved because it would offend blue opera singing aliens" is clearly and obviously a bad reason for a Support. "I dont think it is sexist for reason X" is not. The point of judging consensus is to judge consensus on the part of the people participating and taking reasonable oppose/support arguments into consideration. One the closing editor substitutes their own opinion for that of consensus - thats when it becomes a supervote. In this case given most of the discussion appeared to be over the sexist/gender nature of the title, to disregard *either* sides votes would be making a judgement on if it is sexist or not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Look at it a different way then: There were quite a number of other arguments for the move, that had nothing to do with offensiveness. If you consider the offensive vs. not-offensive views cancel each other out, then consensus would still conclude (as it did twice) in favor of a move, since the don't move rationales left were essentially ILIKEIT (e.g. "it's fine as it is", etc., without any explanation of why it's fine). Meanwhile, various oppose rationales (mostly from Doc) were not policy or common-sense based, e.g. justification of having a page the explicit purpose of which is to be hostile as "helping other editors" peg someone they don't like as some kind of incurable psychological "type" (that happens to be unknown to psychiatry). I call WP:FRINGE WP:BOLLOCKS on that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  13:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, I don't think you are in a position to make sweeping generalizations on how essays should be written. You endorse moves that don't actually meet WP:CON, so that's not good. You are, however, successful in riding on a wave of PC bullshit, and you know it. Bollocks to your wormy acumen. Doc talk 06:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

You just go ahead on there and rack up more personal attacks.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  07:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse as a plausible reading of the discussion. It is entirely appropriate to disregard the "muh freedom of speech" crowd, who have been told the term is both gendered and offensive, as per WP:5P4. The essay should probably be nuked from orbit, but I digress. Alakzi (talk) 09:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

  "Nuked from orbit". Cute reference. I suggested it be nominated for deletion rather than be dragged through the sickening PC grinder, but apparently that's not acceptable either. Nominate it for deletion, please. Doc talk 06:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

  I think that "there is a consensus to move it to something else" is a plausible reading; I disagree that "move it to this name, which has been disputed on exactly the same grounds as the first" is a plausible reading. I think it ought to have been kept open, and more discussion and brainstorming encouraged. I think that most editors would have been satisfied if we had moved the page to something with no gender connotations at all, like WP:Don't be demanding and self-centered or WP:You are not the center of the universe (both options that we didn't consider, because I hadn't thought of them until after the discussion was closed). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

  That sounds fair enough. Though I can understand why JzG chose to close it, if we're gonna have a fruitful discussion, then by all means, relist. Alakzi (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse: This MR has two hurdles to cross, because two WP:ANRFC admins concluded back-to-back that there was a consensus to move. If consensus is to move something (which is unmistakably the case here), and most people WP:DGAF what the new name will be and just object to the current one, but one early idea with support was just a shortcut, and, finally, only one proposed real name got support from multiple parties (including from the proponent who changed his own stance on it, and, albeit grudgingly and hypothetically, from the principal opposer), how is this somehow not sufficient?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  10:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• You have used your admin status to further the undue closure of this witch hunt of a tempest in a teacup. For shame. Doc talk 06:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• I've never been an admin, don't want to be one.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  13:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Well, you've abused and misplaced "political correctness" to turn this once decent essay into an unrecognizable piece of shit. Congratulations. Doc talk 06:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

•  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  07:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn (no consensus) per my nomination. This was obviously not a carefully considered close. Vague generalizations like "unambiguous consensus" are not convincing. The diverging opinions and sub-proposals should have resulted in a "no consensus close".- MrX 12:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • What's the evidence of lack of care, though? Not explaining it to your satisfaction doesn't seem to equate to carelessness.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  14:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Already answered. - MrX 14:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Note - I have reverted the essay to the version before it was substantially rewritten without any consensus. The move was for the name of the essay only, and it did not include an entire rewrite, slipped through without approval. Per WP:EDITCONSENSUS: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." I dispute the edit here, and it therefore does not have consensus to be here. Doc talk 07:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • What an incredibly unproductive thing to do. Jenks24 (talk) 09:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Given that the move and the copyedit to conform to it were made in the same decision being challenged, isn't it disruptive to revert half of this while the RM is still ongoing? I seem to recall a warning to this effect above.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  13:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, the essay has, since SMcCandlish's first edit to it on 2015-06-14, undergone a substantial change of nature and focus. The essay used to be on how to identify a DIVA, and how one should deal with a DIVA, with obvious similarities to dealing with a troll. The rewritten essay is directed to the editor that might be the DIVA.

Important, although not overriding, factors, include that Doc9871 is historically by far the most interested author, that there is substantial historical use of the essay through the DIVA shortcut or similar shortcuts, and that pageview stats indicates that no one was reading the essay in recent months. Its message has been effective, is well known in the community, and is a matter of historical fact, is not an ongoing issue, until the last month. In the early days of Misplaced Pages, there were many more & worse DIVAs than I have seen in recent years.

I agree with Doc9871 that the essay has been entirely retasked without consensus, by a heavy-handed rush job by more influential editors. Per BRD, the changes should be reverted. Doc9871 did that. Per BRD, SMcCandlish should not have reverted the revert.

Does WP:MR carry the authority to prevent reversion of substantial page changes?

The closer and several proponents of the move allege a consensus that the page was offensive. No evidence was supplied. No testimonials from editors offended was supplied. The original thrust and intent of the long-standing essay has now been reversed, and the current page is actually food for a DIVA.

I support Doc9871's reversion, label SMcCandlish's reversion as disruptive, and maintain that there was no consensus to move the page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

If this essay isn't officially deleted, only the name move applies. There is no consensus for the "conforming" rewrite at all. Doc talk 02:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The move edit warring must stop. Immediately. @Doc9871 and SMcCandlish: Stop warring over this. And the WP:BLUDGEONing and personal attacks aren't helping. Disengage if needed. Just stop. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

"Move warring" requires a page move. That's been done. Content removal against established consensus is the current issue. Doc talk 03:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring then. Just stop. This is beyond ridiculous. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

See WP:CON. The content that existed for years enjoyed uncontested consensus until the overhaul "rewrite". Doc talk 03:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I know what CON says. Just stop escalating this. Stop the warring, stop the antagonism, stop the personal attacks. Walk away from this for a day. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I am preserving what had consensus, not escalating. This is not my esasy. It's everybody's. If you want it deleted: nominate it for deletion. If you want to write a parallel essay to replace this one: by all means do. But "rewriting" this one against policy is not happening. Doc talk 03:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The "beyond ridiculous" part (other than all these screaming personal attacks) is that Doc himself repeatedly demanded that I produce such a write-up; it's not my fault that the closer decided that, since the rename involved a necessary rescope as well (half the discussion was about this, not about the name per se), and I'd already written a rescoped version, to use that. No one objected to that version other than Doc, who said there as well as repeating here (see above) that the whole essay should just be deleted. Why are we taking seriously the argument of someone who doesn't want to keep the essay to begin with? I really don't care if it ends up a separate essay to merge later.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  07:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Ask around if I am one to quarrel with. I will "Wikilawyer" you, and really good. You don't have to like me: you have to reckon with me. I do not buy this bullshit move and will see it to its logical conclusion. Cheers ;> Doc talk 07:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow, nice threat too. I'm pretty sure you are in fact headed for a block, though that was not my intent, as I said on my talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  08:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Guess again. i note your block log though. Blocked for "renewed disruption of move procedures, battleground behaviour", yes?. Ouch. Doc talk 08:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse as an accurate reading of the consensus and clearly within admin discretion. There was a clear consensus to move away from the diva title, and a rough consensus for the high maintenance title. For whatever it's worth, it's also the way I would have closed it if I could have been bothered to deal with the inevitable backlash. Thanks to JzG. Jenks24 (talk) 09:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Well put, Jenks24.--Cúchullain /c 13:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Re-open - this one needed to be closed with care and precision. Red Slash 17:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn (no consensus) (or at the very least, re-open). At 7 Opposes and 8 Supports, at best this was a No Consensus, and there was zero agreement as to what any new title would be. Moreover, the change in title makes the text incomprehensible (a defect SMcCandish endeavored to correct by writing an entirely new draft). The best solution here is to retain the old title on the old text, and if someone wants a new essay with another focus, then they should create something new, not rename something that has a clear focus. What in the world is wrong with Calling a spade a spade? We do with all the other "don't feed" essays and their subsidiaries. Softlavender (talk) 06:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, I can clearly see where "calling a spade a spade" is headed on this PC wave of utterly humorless Big Brother "progression". We are racists! Facepalm Doc talk 06:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Except, a) we don't need two almost identical essays on the same thing, one an attack page and one an advice page; they'll just be merged, and we know which way the merge will go. b) WP:Don't feed the trolls was rewritten and rescoped for essentially the same reason: It doesn't serve WP's interests to have a page calling people names instead of providing advice about how to deal with a problem (and avoid being one). The fact that a couple of other "Don't feed" essays are still around doesn't mean much other than they're disused and nearly forgotten.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  06:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• A different essay comes to mind, but it, too was renamed to sound less like it served no purpose but to insult people.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  06:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Well, we don't all just automatically subscribe to your view of how essays should be written here around here. Tough shit. We use process instead. Doc talk 06:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hmm, like an RM that concluded twice in a row with a consensus to move.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  07:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, I'm sure that there was no consensus. Certainly not for the "rewrite". Doc talk 07:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• The general inability of people involved in a discussion to determine consensus about it is why we have uninvolved third parties assess them when they're not snowballs. Twice in a row, consenus to move, the first time no consensus yet on what to move it to. Just go read it. It's not like I'm making that up. I'll save you the trouble: .  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  08:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• "A "new, non-accusatory version substituted." Really?! What a disgusting whitewash of a PC non-issue that never should have been. Just bad all around. Delete it or create a new essay. Doc talk 08:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse close. I think JzG incorporated editors' legitimate concerns while respecting Misplaced Pages's policies (especially WP:NPA). There was an emerging consensus to move this to another title, and not all of the opposing rationales were based in policy, including "because the current title is hilarious" and it "seems like pandering". One opposer argued that people who said the title might be offensive were acting like divas themselves while another supported alternative titles. Jenks24 noted the rough consensus in favour of a move on 9 July. All of these combined lead me to believe that the close was sound. gobonobo 08:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

  If it were a NPA issue, the essay would have been deleted long ago. Unfortunately, it was a misplaced PC issue, handled as expected by a nervous admin corps. Doesn't make it a correct close. Doc talk 09:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages move review monthly listings