- Self-balancing scooter(talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)
This RM was originally ad-min closed as no consensus onApril 4,after no comments for a month. Then, at the request of a single user, it was reopened so that user could ask a question. Three new users commented since the reopen. But now it has been abruptly non-admin closed. This time, in the middle of the reopened discussion. The last user's comment occurred less than a day prior to this new closure. The closure was also called "in favor" with consensus; although the!vote was 4-2: but actually 4-3 as one user disagreed while not formally voting. There is also significant additional information not discussed in the RM. Namely that the new name "self-balancing scooter" is already in wide use on acompletely new device.So for all these reasons, I request reopening. Even if for no other reason than to relist to discuss the proposed new name in light of this new device sharing the same moniker. I have discussed this closure at length, with the non-admin closer on their talk page. But the closer continued to defend it and refused to consider a reopen or relist.X4n6(talk)08:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As I previously told you in the discussionon my talk page,the vote count you are suggesting is very disingenuous, as the only reason for any of the "oppose" votes was due to the caps error in the original nominator's RM. The support votes following this supported with the caps issue fixed. if you want to count votes, it is 4:1 or 4:0 depending on how you want to count. The fact is that no one disagrees that the new title is better than the original one. Even the admin who previously closed the article as no-consensus, and then reopened itagrees that my decision was fine.As I suggested to you on my talk page, if you want to argue for some variant of "Hoverboard", open up another RM arguing for it, nothing is stopping you. Of the comments that specifically addressed the title change, they were overwhelmingly in support (except for the caps error), or else were in favour of some version of "hoverboard". However, as there was vocal opposition to the hoverboard idea on the basis that it competes with primary topic withHoverboard,I can safely say that there was no consensus toward that idea at all, and after 2 months of being open, it is not likely for one to develop toward your preferred choice. I can tell that you would rather that this move discussion be closed as no-consensus (as you objected to the reopening byCuchullain), so that you can later support some variant of "hoverboard", or some other term once "the market decides what to call these devices" (in your own words). However, this doesn't serve the Wiki very well, as leaving the article at an agreed bad title is just silly, especially when an alternative exists that is commonly used. InsertCleverPhraseHere 08:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, you are continuing to make statements which are provably incorrect. While you continue to claim that the only objections were because of "caps errors" you consistently ignore the fact that thisobjectionhad nothing to do with cap errors, and everything to do with the substance of the proposed move - which is the proposed new name. You also consistently ignore the facts behind each oppose vote. This!vote pretty unambiguously begins:"Oppose current proposal".Whether that!vote might support some variation of a similar proposal is irrelevant. It must be counted as what it says: which is that it opposes the current proposal. As for my own objection, my!vote is equally clear. I"Strongly Disagreed"with the proposal. But rather than counting the votes as they were cast, you continue to engage in "creative accounting" to claim "if you want to count votes, it is 4:1 or 4:0 depending on how you want to count." How I "want to count" is easy. I want to count the votes as they say. I want a support vote counted as support and an oppose voted counted as oppose. It's no more complicated than that. And how you claim to be able to get to "4:1 or 4:0" if beyond me. Further, defending the original title isn't the issue. The argumenthasalwaysbeenas I've said at the page's talk: "As required byWP:NAMINGCRITERIA,there seems to be both precedent and consensus that, while the current name is admittedly imprecise, it needs to remain for now. As no other name has emerged that is definitive. It makes no sense to incrementally replace one imperfect title with another. That's why I suggested we all wait for the market to identify a correct name, not editors. Once they are declared safe and legal again, the market and appropriate governmental agencies will determine an appropriate name. Then we can rightfully revisit this and have a full and fully informed discussion. But not before that. Any judgment we made now would be completely arbitrary and would likely be changed again anyway after the market and those agencies decide. "I also think it's a stretch to claim the admin who originally closed it agrees with your decision, solely based on a discussion he and I had on the original closure which - by the way - he closed as no consensus; and which occurred before you got involved! But that same admin did feel compelled to question your judgment just two days ago, in your closure ofMuscat, Oman.As he said: "Well, I know I participated, but I'd regard 14-8 as a consensus to move, given the strength of the evidence. At least, it's not clear to me that there's a lack of consensus here. Respectfully, I ask that you reopen the RM." He finally relented, likely because he was involved in that discussion and didn't want to appear to be abusing his admin position. But his concerns were obviously strong enough to make the original request that you review your decision and reopen. But not surprisingly, you refused there too. In fact, in your year on this project, I would be interested in knowing if there is a single instance in which you reverted a closure based upon a request to do so? If so, kindly link to it. But he madeone other point,He said: "Something I'm dancing around is thatnon-admin closuresare best reserved for cases where the consensus, or lack thereof, is clear. "I agree. But you also ignored the other important reason why I requested this review. PerWP:CLOSECHALLENGE:"Most closure reviews need to be based on context or information left out of the discussion, or new information that would have altered the discussion outcome were it held now." I believe the presence of a new product which uses the exact same name as this proposed new name would reasonably have impacted the discussion.X4n6(talk)10:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you read the link I actually linked above. If you look onUser_talk:Cuchullain#Advice_on_Rm_closingsthe correct part of the page, (where I linked it) you'll find the discussion I am talking about. I have actually discussed these moves with Cuchullain and asked for his advice. As you have apparently missed this, and misinterpreted everything I said about him as a result, I suggest you review the above link.
- The oppose you linked (other than your own) was due to the caps issue, as I stated quite clearly in my reply earlier. When I say "depending on how you count" I am referring to the fact that the only disagree vote not based on caps issues was yours. If you want to split hairs, the!vote count was 5-1 when you consider the nominator, as well as discount the one oppose vote based solely on the capitalisation error, with the only direct oppose being yours.Wbm1058commented on the possibility of "hoverboard (scooter)" but expressed no preference of his/her own. I have suggested that a separate RM is the best place to evaluate the merit of "hoverboard (scooter)". There is not much more for me to say. InsertCleverPhraseHere 12:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- EndorseThe only clear oppose I see there is X4n6.Jamesonly explicitly objected to the incorrect capitalization, andwbm1058talked about the ambiguity of "scooter", but that doesn't really speak to "self-balancing scooter". The close was entirely valid. 16 days after Cuchullain reopened, it was no means abrupt (!) either. --BDD(talk)14:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse,echoingBDD.I don't see anything out of order with this close: there was clear support for the move, especially in comments that came after I'd reopened it, and only one specific oppose to this move, fromX4n6.While it's true that non-admins are generally advised not to close unclear or controversial RMs, I frankly don't see this one as controversial; it's more one vocal editor challenging any outcome other than their preferred one.--Cúchullaint/c14:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentAs I've already said, a vote should be a vote. The only splitting of hairs occurs when closers see clearly stated "oppose" votes as "well maybe this would be a yes if" votes. That's not impartial judgment. That's advocacy. You can apply whatever circular argument you'd like, but that's really all that is at issue here. I've also not seen anyone suggesting that I've misinterpreted the policies I referenced, or defend the logic of closing an RM a day after the last comment. Especially when so many new editors were weighing in. Nor has anyone disputed the issue I raised regarding the strong likelihood that knowledge of the competing product with the same name would have influenced the discussion. But if people choose to endorse the close, that's fine and I'll accept it. I just wanted other eyes on it. As I've always said, this issue will undoubtedly be raised again soon anyway; and probably not by me. But the notion that I'm simply another vocal editor disgruntled by the outcome - which is both untrue and unfair - would still likely have carried more weight if it hadn't come from the same admin who reopened the RM for that very reason in the first place. Without that, we wouldn't be here.X4n6(talk)19:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- X4n6:that's just the thing: move dicussions arenotvotes. Closers weigh policy, evidence, and strength of argument in making their decision.--Cúchullaint/c05:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- MehThe close is OK, though I don't think there would have been any harm in leaving it open for a day or two longer after I posted my comment. I came by looking for discussions needing to be closed, but after reviewing the discussion I didn't feel confident in closing it myself; hence my late comments at the end. I did not see a strong case being made in support of the old titleSelf-balancing two-wheeled board.Rather, my cursory look leads me to think thatHoverboardwith some sort of disambiguation distinguishing them from the levitating variety is worth a closer look. Google counts are problematic without some means of distinguishing the scooter-type from the levitating type, and the fact that "scooter" can mean such a wide variety of devices. So I think perhaps the best way to determine the name is to use the name used most commonly in the sources which are actually cited in the article, but I didn't see anyone attempt to make a count of them to assess that. So,endorse,provided that another request to move to any other related title such ashoverboard (scooter)may be opened at any time, without prejudice to being "too soon" after this request was closed.wbm1058(talk) 17:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC) Oh, and the fact that UL (what's still better known to me asUnderwriters Laboratories) has named them "self-balancing scooter"makes a strong case for this being thede factoWP:official name.That could still be overridden by a stonger case for something else as theWP:common name.wbm1058(talk)17:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Wbm1058:I have modified my closing remarks to make it clear that it does not preclude raising some variant of "hoverboard" in a future RM, I have made this clear toX4n6several times previously, but given your comments I felt it necessary to make it explicit on the talk page and in the move closing remarks specifically. I hope this helps resolve the issue. InsertCleverPhraseHere 01:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse.Disclaimer: I supported this move, and I alsoqueried the original no consensus close on a user talk pagewhich led toCuchullainreopening it. The matter also arose as a couple of questions (14 and 15) on myrecent request for adminship.So yes, I supported the move. But looking objectively at the debate, I think the close was entirely correct. There's no issue with the reasoning behind the supports -WP:COMMONNAME- so it comes down to consensus in the debate. I think it would have been correct to close as moved even at the time of the original close (with a then 3:1 majority in favour of the move, not counting the oppose that was purely on the grounds of capitalisation). Since then, although the original caps opposer has remained silent on the wider question, two further supporters have voted, meaning it's now 5:1 in favour, with one oppose that's been declared redundant because it deals only with the caps issue, and another comment about the word "scooter" that doesn't support or oppose. As others have said, it could have been allowed to play out for a few more days following the last comment, but equally this had been on the backlog for a crazy length of time, and it's been pretty much an obvious close in my view, for most of that time. —Amakuru(talk)22:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment.Thanks,Amakurufor weighing in. I was hopeful that you would, given your involvement. Having now heard from you, the admin who closed it originally and others; I see no remaining reason to prolong the review. All the interested parties have had an opportunity to weigh in and moved on. Request review closure on that basis.X4n6(talk)01:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
