Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2022 September

Charles III (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Unusually, the closer Wugapodes speedy-closed the RM after only two days elapsed. It was not a snow-close, with the close reason declaring the opposers more compelling over the understandable objections of the supporters. I asked Wugapodes why they closed so early; their justification was effectively "because there were over 200 voters". I decided to bring this to MRV to look for third opinions on whether large amounts of voters being present is an okay reason to close RMs early. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved editor statements (Charles III)

• Endorse. An appropriate admin discretion close if a discussion that can only consume more resources than it’s worth. I disagree with the strength of “there is a consensus that Charles Windsor is the primary topic for Charles III”, but there is clear no consensus the other way. These sorts of fine balance titling discussions can be resumed at a later time. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The nom's and other editors' agitation is certainly understandable, because such a closure as this isn't seen everyday. I think there are many people who find the loss of the magnificent queen unsettling and are prompted to get involved in every aspect of the many changes to come. The closer said it best with the WP:NOTBURO policy, which does justify such administrative action in cases like this. Don't think the closer was being unreasonable when they summarized, "...there is a consensus that Charles Windsor is the primary topic for Charles III...". Don't even care to imagine what this RM would have looked like after five more days – goose pimples all over! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 07:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The close was entirely proper, given the large amount of participation already seen and the clear consensus that had already emerged. I had been intending to close it the same way myself at some point that day anyway. We don't leave an RM running for a full seven days just for the sake of it, when the outcome is not in doubt.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The closer acknowledges that while discussions are not votes, discounting such a wide margin would require an overwhelmingly strong policy-based argument for supporters (and an overwhelmingly weak argument from opposers), but concludes that that is not the case here. Respectfully, I disagree. Almost all oppose !votes were guilty of violating RECENTISM, NOTNEWS and (especially) CRYSTALBALL. Srnec (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:RECENTISM isn't a policy. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL are content policies and deal with what's in an article, generally supplementing WP:V and WP:N, and have little to do with WP:TITLE. Just because some capitalized words share a shortcut with policies doesn't make it an "overwhelmingly strong policy-based argument" if the cited policy doesn't support the argument. At best, the references to those policies are meant to invoke a general reluctance to speculate based on recent events, and while that's a valid position, it's not policy and shouldn't be confused with the actual policy text. To overrule a majority of editors with reasonable policy interpretations, I'd want the minority arguments to reference what the policy actually said, not what they thought it said based on the shortcut name. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Endorse per WP:NOTBURO, while RMs should be open at least 7 days before closing, this discussion was heavily attended. Only reason I'm not fully endorsing is often some of the stronger arguments take time for research trends, and I don't want to endorse NOTBURO in general for similar cases. I agree with SmokeyJoe above, that if necessary the primariness can be reconsidered in the future if trends show the current result is not the ideal long term one. PaleAqua (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The general 7-day rule is so a discussion will have enough time to generate meaningful input from the community. The full 7 days was not needed in this specific case. The final outcome of the discussion was obvious and belaboring the issue any longer was unnecessary. This is a case of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – There was already substantial participation at the RM, far more than at the vast majority of RfA discussions. At present, the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is the current monarch of the Commonwealth Realms. If it turns out that the current Charles III ends up not being the primary topic then a new RM discussion can be held. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – if it's blindingly obvious a discussion is going one way or another, we don't need to have it last seven days just for the sake of it. It was clear after only a few hours what way it was going, and as it went on, the opposition only got stronger. Sceptre (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Involved editor statements (Charles III)

• Endorse. Disclosure: I was one of the people making the original move which was under discussion. But that said, I do think Wugapodes' justification for early closure (that 200 people had already contributed, and there was no real prospect of more contributions altering the outcome) was sufficient justification for closing the move request. No doubt the very high number of contributions was due to the advertisement of the discussion on the article, which must have been one of the highest-traffic pages on the whole project in the last few days. The Land (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Disclosure: I was one of the editors opposing the move. Regarding the early closure: there were already over 200 editors contributing after two days, and already after the first day the arguments started to repeat earlier arguments with virtually no new arguments presented. Regarding reaching the consensus: the article title had to be changed from the original stable title (Charles, Prince of Wales) in any case as nobody was proposing keeping the original stable title. In my opinion, the closer reached the correct conclusion regarding the move that was also supported by the majority of the editors. IlkkaP (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Mrvan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

A contested speedy move [1] should be discussed, and not moved speedily, per If your technical request is contested, or if a contested request is left untouched without reply, create a requested move on the article talk and remove the request from the section here. The fastest and easiest way is to click the "discuss" button at the request, save the talk page, and remove the entry on this page. ; A primary topic swap where no notice is posted to either article's talk pages, certainly should have a full discussion. The request was conteseted (by me) yet it went through not following the instructions indicated at WP:RMTR. What's the hurry needing to move without a 7 day period to establish primarity? Certainly a 1-year political career (Frank J. Mrvan) versions a 40-year political career (Frank Ed Mrvan Jr.) should engender discussion -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 06:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP, did you notice that WP:IMR says, Before requesting a move review: please attempt to discuss the matter with the closer of the page move discussion on the closer's talk page and you went straightaway and initiated this move review request. I'm not also sure if this venue deals with RMT requests as well. WP:MRNOT puts forth a number of guidelines that should be taken care of instead of directly initiating move review requests. That said, I performed the move because I felt your oppose rationale was uncalled for, and a regular RM was unworthy, and in that case, if you had to disagree, RMT was the best venue, or the best being my own talk page. I still stand on my move being inline with Primary topic. Regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note and for handling. Andre🚐 14:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAafi: Once a technical request is contested, the page should not be moved. The contested request then needs to be withdrawn by the requester or a full RM needs to be opened. The requester could have gone to your talk page, but you already knew they objected to the move. In any case, now that the objection is here, the move should be reversed, hopefully voluntarily, and an RM started. The subject is commonly known as Frank J. Mrvan in a large number of reliable primary and secondary sources, and the "J" also serves as natural disambiguation, but that is a discussion that needs to be had on the article's talk page, not here. Station1 (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Station1, Although I disagree, I've reversed the move given your thoughtful advice. Regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I opened a requested move request on the talk page for Frank J. Mrvan. Andre🚐 16:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all. I will close this thread as now moot. Station1 (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was handled correctly. "Frank J. Mrvan" is a current national U.S. house member while his father "Frank Ed Mrvan Jr." is a state senator. The son has more coverage in reliable sources since he is not just a state/local politician but a sitting federal politician. Length of career isn't the operative metric, but the amount of coverage in reliable sources. Andre🚐 14:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

North Macedonian denar (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Closure requested

Hello. This article had been at "Macedonian denar" and an RM was opened to move the article to "North Macedonian denar". Those supporting the move proposal are single-purpose accounts, including the nominator [accounts whose edits consist almost entirely of adding "North" in front of Macedonia(n) wherever possible, not contributing to actual content]. The opposition consisted of myself and another longstanding (neutral) user. Thus, I fail to see the clear consensus that the closing editor mentioned. There are also no ambiguity concerns with the original title, thus conciseness favors "Macedonian denar". Google trends also clearly favor "Macedonian denar".

Essentially, I had compiled a listing of "Macedonian denar" sources at User:Local hero/sandbox of well over 200 sources from international organizations, foreign government entities, books, news sites, business sites, online exchanges, remittance providers, etc. The nominator had compiled a list of (by my summation) 112 sources for "North Macedonian denar". Nearly a third of these were from a single entity: Kosovo's central bank.

Thus, it is clear that the original article title is preferred in sources and I am confused as to how this RM succeeded. I first brought the issue to the closing editor's talkpage, though I haven't gotten a response to my follow-up for several days now. Thank you. --Local hero ^talk 03:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus <I relisted the discussion and handed out a few DS alerts but am otherwise uninvolved (and have no view on the merits)>. This was a messy discussion and I understand how Amakuru came to the conclusion he did, but personally I don't see a consensus. To start with, the !vote tally is much closer than it looks because several users !voted twice—I count four supports (Ο Ροζ Πάνθηρας, Korpalo, Weatherextremes, and Pratishthana) and three opposes (Local hero, Kluche, and Red Slash). We're thus evenly split from a numerical perspective, and in my view we're also split from a strength-of-argument perspective: both sides engaged with policies and guidelines, presented lengthy lists of sources, and examined the sources' reliability/independence/relevance in copious detail. As WP:RMCI notes, "lack of consensus among participants along with no clear indication from policy and conventions normally means that no change happens", and I think that's where we are: there are reasonable COMMONNAME-based arguments on both sides, and !voters are divided as to which ones are strongest. I'm also concerned that several supporters did appear to be single-purpose accounts—the closer probably should have given less weight to those (see WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS for such a guideline in a similar context). Regardless, I don't really see a consensus here, although a future RM (hopefully with more input from editors from outside the topic area) might achieve a more decisive result. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I was notified about this discussion due to a reference to my username in the edit, I would like to corroborate Ο Ροζ Πάνθηρας's account about Dorian Lake (and various other similar cases around the same time), where, although I held a neutral position, I noticed an insistence by Local hero to remove all references of "North Macedonian" for no real reason (neither to conform to MOSMAC nor to improve the readability). Although I judged both versions as equally good, I noted that it was counterproductive to go through such a process every time somebody tries to work on these pages for no real reason, discouraging people trying to contribute.

Regarding the renaming being discussed, I didn't participate because I wasn't aware of it, but I read the discussion later as I'm generally involved in the topic and found the arguments for moving much more convincing than those for keeping the page as is. I participated in the original RfC for drafting MOSMAC, including the compilation of mentions of various names in reliable sources, and I don't see any problems with the methodology used in the discussion by Ο Ροζ Πάνθηρας. --Antondimak (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, on the support side we have two single-purpose accounts making the arguments and then a few fellow Greek-POV editors labelling their arguments as "much more convincing" in no detail. For background, Antondimak was in the past also labelled an SPA by an admin, though I do find this user more agreeable than the SPAs arranged here. --Local hero ^talk 14:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That admin had some kind of problem with me for whatever reason, also showed up in random discussions where he wasn't involved to attack me, but I didn't pursue it because I don't like drama. I have an eight year old account with about ten thousand edits and have created about 150 articles, the majority of my activity on this site being unrelated to Macedonia. I was really trying not to antagonise you, and I think this is obvious in the mentioned articles' talk pages, but can an account operated by a Slavic Macedonian who appears in pretty much every discussion on this site with the purpose to remove all references to the term "North Macedonian" accuse another user of operating an SPA and having a disruptive POV, without self-incriminating? It's inappropriate to attack someone based on their assumed ethnicity anyway but in this case I don't even see the point. --Antondimak (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer note - as I pointed out to Local Hero on my talk page, there was extensive data provided in support of the move request, demonstrating usages on both sides, and showing that usages of the "North Macedonian denar" variant was in the majority in modern sources since the country's name was changed. Local Hero provided an alternative list, but it was demonstrated in the discussion that their list had many sources that were clearly published before the change of name. It was thus rejected. They then listed a longer list of sources in their sandbox, but this was also refuted as a cherry-picked list, pruned to only include "Macedonian denar" usage and thus not a neutral and empirical analysis reflective of the sources at large. I didn't mention this at the time, but I rejected outright one of the "oppose" !votes citing WP:CONCISE - concision is never used as a reason to use a less-common name over a more-common name, and the issue here was not whether to disambiguate a particular way or not, but simply to assess whether the conditions of WP:NAMECHANGES was met. @Extraordinary Writ: you make some good points above, but counting votes should never be a proxy for evaluating the arguments made, and WP:CONSENSUS is formed that way. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I reject that it has been proven that "many" of my sources were clearly published before the name change. This argument had been propagated by the single-purpose accounts from the get-go and apparently it stuck. Let's say even a third of mine were indeed "old", it's still more sources than the "North Macedonian" list. And please remember that this isn't just about quantity, it's also about quality; "Macedonian denar" is clearly preferred by the World Bank, the IMF, European organizations, and foreign governments. "North Macedonian" literally seems to only be preferred by one semi-recognized country's bank.

  Yes, my list is clearly lists only "Macedonian denar" sources ("cherry-picked" as you say), as the nominator had already compiled "North Macedonian" sources. I will note that in searching for "Macedonian denar", results with "North" in front will come up and, frankly, it was uncommon to see "North" used, as demonstrated by the gap between the number of sources in each list.

  Counting votes indeed is not how to evaluate consensus. The article was moved based on a consensus of single-purpose accounts. The only non-Balkan-focused editor to chime in opposed the move and WP:Article titles does instruct us that titles should be concise and natural.

  --Local hero ^talk 13:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I was also informed regarding this discussion due to a reference to my username in the edit. Even though I had a rather limited overall participation I will stick to my initial opinion that Local hero's list has limited merit as Amakuru suggests. Weatherextremes (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I meant to respond to this but kept forgetting—apologies. Yes, I certainly agree that the !vote count shouldn't be the primary consideration, and I don't mean to suggest that you gave too little weight to the numbers. The only reason I framed my comment the way I did was to make the point that the discussion could be closed as moved only if the supports were substantially stronger than the opposes as a strength-of-argument matter—a threshold that in my view wasn't met since both sides made more-or-less reasonable arguments and rebuttals. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. <uninvolved> Interesting read all of this. Lots of back and forth here, on the RM page and at ANI. Going to focus on here, though, which is just to say that I will focus on the closure. So side arguments aside, first glance would call for a "no-consensus" outcome as suggested by editor Extraordinary Writ. After about the third read of the RM it becomes clear that this closure was reasonable in that it took into account both the new name of the country and its usage in reliable sources since the name change. That's important here because the country's name is used as a natural disambiguator of its currency unit, the "denar". So the support arguments in the RM were stronger and closely aligned with Wikipedia's COMMONNAME policy and community consensus. Closer's arguments are reasonably sound. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 20:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for taking the time to read everything. Did you notice on my sandbox that I wrote dates for most of my sources? I realize I've asked this previously and you likely read it, but it seems like no one is acknowledging the (in my view) obvious difference in quality and quantity in favor of the original title (yes, even limiting to post-Feb. 2019 sources). --Local hero ^talk 21:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  my pleasure, editor Local hero! Like many here I am a reader, I like to read. Move review is a place to evaluate the closure, not to reargue the merits of the sources given in the move request nor any other RM arguments. That is not always obvious, but it does mean that my endorsement of this RM closure stands. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 16:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note there is an active SPI related to this discussion, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pratishthana. --Local hero ^talk 15:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Pratishthana was exonerated; SPI moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nikokiris. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 11:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser has confirmed that Korpalo and Ο Ροζ Πάνθηρας (i.e. the entire support side of the move) are sockpuppets of a user that also operated at least three other sockpuppets (one may be Pratishthana, who also gave a support vote here). Per WP:CONSENSUS: "Using an alternative persona ("sock puppet", or "sock") to influence consensus is absolutely forbidden." --Local hero ^talk 14:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gentle reminder that since the closure does not rely upon the number of !votes and only on the value of the arguments, even if such sockpuppetry had a role in the RM, the closer made their analysis based upon the arguments, so a numerical "influence" is a non-issue. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 18:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So what we had was essentially one individual (two or three accounts) arguing the support side and myself arguing the oppose side (with a support vote from the only non-Balkan-focused editor). It is at this point at which the closing user should find consensus among the participants. Again I ask, where was this consensus, especially now knowing that the two arguers for the support side were one person?

The closing user has instead justified the move based on finding the support side's list more convincing. Thus, not basing the closure upon the consensus (or lack thereof) among the participants, but on the closing user's own opinion of the RM, which, if I'm not mistaken, should be voiced as a support vote and rationale. --Local hero ^talk 19:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The closing user has instead justified the move based on finding the support side's list more convincing. Yes.

Thus, [...] basing the closure on the closing user's own opinion of the RM, which is what closers do in the sense that we develop an opinion of the RM based upon the arguments in the RM. For those here who are closers, it is easy to see how the RM closer reached their conclusion. For those here who participated in the RM, it is easy for closers to see how you might draw such a conclusion; however, RM participants are not always objective in their analyses. Perhaps if you were to step back and try to objectively analyze this RM, then you might be able to hand out a closure similar to that being discussed here. The closer evaluated the arguments, some of which contained sources, and made a decision based upon those arguments. You seem to be too near to the RM discussion to correctly evaluate its closure. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 19:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely too close, that's why I appreciate you and Extraordinary Writ taking the time to look at this. The thing that I find obvious is that the sockpuppet managed a list of 113 sources, of which 34 were from one place. I put together a list of 200+ from the World Bank (11), the IMF (20), the ECB (9+), the EC (7), and so many more that are verifiably post-Feb 2019. If someone could go source-by-source and honestly tell me that the sockpuppet's sources are superior and more in quantity, I'll shut up about this :)

However, I understand this is not about re-arguing the points of the RM but about discussing the closure itself. As I read closing instructions, I do not find anything about the closing user taking an opinion on the discussion and closing the discussion based on that opinion. It seems to be centered around finding consensus among participants and tells us this:

"If objections have been raised, then the discussion should be evaluated just like any other discussion on Wikipedia: lack of consensus among participants along with no clear indication from policy and conventions normally means that no change happens"

--Local hero ^talk 20:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. It takes a certain objectivity to see through to the RM closer's conclusion. And even then, when an editor is objective, it can be difficult to see, such as was the case with editor Extraordinary Writ's analysis above. It might take some more digging, which is what the closer did in this case, to find the consensus in this move request. Yes, objections were raised, and those objections were evaluated. In this case a lack of consensus among participants was not found. In this case there was found a "clear consensus" to rename the article. This might be near-impossible to sense if one is involved deeply in the arguments to the point of expecting a certain outcome, and no other outcome will do. There was and is consensus for this RM's outcome, not only the local consensus found in the RM, also the community consensus I mentioned above in my rationale to endorse, the community consensus found in the WP:COMMONNAME policy, which supports usage of the new country name as applied to its currency, the denar. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 02:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Applying the new country name to its currency does not mean "North Macedonian denar" is the correct title. Per WP:MOSMAC: "Article names, categories, and templates should avoid adjectival use altogether." Thus, "North Macedonia denar" would be the appropriate title (I believe this was preferred by some sources including the UN). This policy was not considered by the closing user.

Also, I would still contend that the objections were not adequately evaluated and it is highly likely that if we were to randomly pick a different closing user, they would have not moved the page. The closing user, not participating much in this discussion, dismissed my entire list because it was "cherry-picked"... why is the burden on me to gather the sources for the support side? The supporting sockpuppet did that and I did the opposing side. --Local hero ^talk 05:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, "North Macedonia denar" would be the appropriate title [...]

Technically, no. In the phrase "North Macedonia denar", the country's name is still being used as an adjective phrase. It doesn't matter whether it ends in an "n" or not, "denar" is a noun described by the country's name. According to the naming convention you cited, which is a guideline, not a policy, the title might better be settled as "Denar of North Macedonia" or "North Macedonia's denar". To me, both of those sound more awkward than the present title, but that's just me.

Yes, I agree with you in regard to the "cherry-picked" idea; however, even with that I still think the closure is reasonable. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 10:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, cherry picked sources are those found by an editor when there are an overwhelming number of sources that say something else. So if you had found five sources in opposition, but there were a hundred sources in support, then you could be rightly accused of cherry picking. That's not what happened in this RM. In this RM the sources are still as ambiguous as they were when the guideline was formed, so I don't think either side can be said to have cherry picked their sources. Either way the sources' ambiguities remain. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 10:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, however the section I cite specifies that "adjectival form" refers to ("Macedonian" or "North Macedonian") and that's what I'm talking about here. Point being, "North Macedonia denar" is the best name based on this guideline; not a policy as you state, but it was achieved through a bitter and lengthy process to be applied to the unique world of Macedonia naming topics.

If ambiguities remain, how could it have been determined that there was a "clear consensus" in favor of "North Macedonian"?

You find the closure "reasonable" - but does that mean it was the right move? Had a closing user closed this as no consensus - no move, would you consider that unreasonable? --Local hero ^talk 18:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps the guideline isn't honed to perfection yet? I'll leave it at that.

It is clear that the closer, after evaluating the args, thought that stipulations in the WP:NAMECHANGES policy had been met in this RM. And I find that to be a reasonable conclusion. What that means is that I find this closure reasonable and endorsable. I see no reason to speculate about other possibilities that as yet have not taken place. Without further analysis, I have no idea how I would assess a different closure if brought here to MRV. As far as I'm concerned, that would be an apples vs. oranges comparison. Sorry, but to ask the question you asked shows that you are still far too close to the subject matter to see all this clearly, distinctly and with an open mind. That's okay, because when you've been here long enough you may experience "the other side" of an argument and will come to understand how objectivity sheds light on these closures.

Now, you can have the last word if you want; I think I've said all that needs to be said, because I'm finding myself repeating my args, and one should never have to do that. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 19:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Honestly, this is a mess. I wonder if it wouldn't be better to just vacate this RM and hold a new one. No disrespect at all to Amakuru, who was unwittingly thrust into a deeply unpleasant situation, but a new discussion with new eyes on it and the sockpuppets gone might produce a clearer consensus. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps, but I'm not ready to admit that all this time has been wasted. Amakuru is an experienced closer, a trusted admin, and has closed this RM reasonably in spite of the socks. There doesn't really appear to be any need to vacate the RM. The RM closure should either be endorsed (no consensus not to endorse at this point) or overturned (no consensus to do so as of this moment). At least then it can be said that time was not wasted and Wikipedia was improved. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 06:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's fair. If I must vote, I will vote to overturn to no consensus. From the sources presented, it is not at all obvious to me that "North Macedonian denar" is the WP:COMMONNAME even when excluding pre-2019 sources (I don't think either is, especially when I see so many sources using both), and I don't believe there's a substantive issue here apart from WP:COMMONNAME, just editors' personal preference for whether the title should be briefer or more closely associated with the country. At that point, it's two votes in favor and three against (or three and three if we say the sockpuppets' owner is entitled to one vote). I don't think that's a consensus. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  erm... guess it's a judgement call, which is why good admins get the big bucks? especially when I see so many sources using both, that's exactly right and what tips the scales toward good judgement. Good judgement much like editors used when the main article was renamed to "North Macedonia" back in February, 2019. The RM closer after evaluating the sources judged in favor of using the country's present, and yes, "common" name to describe its unit of currency. Me too! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 15:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The reason I don't necessarily think the country's name is a controlling issue is that, as my peripheral understanding has it, Republic of Macedonia agreed to rename to North Macedonia so that it was clear it wasn't laying claim to the entire region, most of which is controlled by Greece. Since the region of Greece obviously doesn't have its own currency, speaking of a "Macedonian" denar obviously refers to the Republic of (North) Macedonia; there's no ambiguity, and certainly no implicit claim that the denar is the true currency of all Macedonians, as much as the ethno-nationalists may want to make an issue of it. But all that's wandering from the scope of MRV; Amakuru based his closure on WP:COMMONNAME, and like I said, when IMF, World Bank, Eurostat, and most of the other major institutions I glanced at use both in different documents, it seems to me that neither is really more prevalent. But it sounds like you are using a different metric to interpret all those sources? That's fine; I am certainly no stranger to conflicting readings of consensus sparked by conflicting readings of sources. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus per Extraordinary Writ. While Amakuru's closure was within discretion, the discussion was too much tainted by sockpuppets and SPAs that it was truly difficult to separate grain from chaff. I'm not sure that the COMMONNAME arguments, while persuasive at first sight, would sustain scrutiny. No prejudice against renomination, but I don't see a real consensus either numerically or by strength of arguments. No such user (talk) 08:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus - I was involved in the request. I also think it was muddled tremendously, so overturn exactly per no such user. I also do not even remotely want to censure Amakuru, who tried their best to close correctly. Red Slash 17:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Formalising my previous position as stated in previous comments, and as per Paine Ellsworth, I think Amakuru acted correctly according to Wikipedia's guidelines in closing this move request. Now, given the more recent revelations of sock-puppetry, I still hold my previous position. This isn't a vote, and a user's conduct doesn't change the soundness of their arguments.

Besides, even if it was a vote, it seems to have just involved two accounts in this case, Ο Ροζ Πάνθηρας and Korpalo, not significantly changing the outcome and, given that I, as stated previously, intended to participate in the original discussion but wasn't aware of it, and I support the arguments in favour of the move, the outcome, in case the discussion was repeated without foul play, would essentially remain the same. --Antondimak (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Also formalising my previous position I agree with Paine Ellsworth. I was only briefly involved in the original discussion and despite the fact that Ροζ Πάνθηρας and Korpalo turned out to be sock-puppets this does not change the fact that the arguments in favor of the move are stronger. Weatherextremes (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus I was not involved in the previous discussion, however, I believe that the users who are advocating for the article to be called "North Macedonian denar" are doing it due to their nationalistic point of view. The reality is that the Macedonian Denar is officially known as such internationally, whereas yes, the official name of the country is North Macedonia. I also believe that it is crucial for Wikipedia to follow WP:MOSMAC, which allows for the adjective Macedonian to be used. The only instance where the adjective "North Macedonian" is permitted is when referring to official state institutions. Furthermore, from what I can see, the outcome of the previous discussion is a result of WP:TAGTEAM, i.e. the accounts pushing the Greek POV were coordinating with each other so there was a consensus on this matter, which aligned with their personal beliefs and POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkdpartizan (talk • contribs) 15:01, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  are doing it due to their nationalistic point of view

  This is really offensive! I am not a nationalist and in fact I don't give a damn about nationalistic bs. If anything I am a proud progressive leftist who rejects the very notion of nation states. Please revoke this statement and also refrain from baseless allegations that I am coordinating with someone. I made VERY clear the reasons I endorse the name change and it has NOTHING to do with your offensive allegations. Weatherextremes (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, this is quite a stretch as I have no nationalistic POV here and indeed do not advocate any particular title other than a title which is in accord with WP:COMMONNAME. I especially advocate any title chosen by consensus in the move request and which was ultimately decided upon by the closer of the RM. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 05:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think you have advocated for "North Macedonian denar" as the correct title anywhere (correct me if I'm wrong), rather claiming that the decision by the closing user was "reasonable". Thus, I don't think Mkdpartizan could have been referring to you, but rather the Greek users (socks and non-socks alike) that have taken predictable positions on this debate. I say this knowing full well that my position (and presumably Mkdpartizan's) are just as predictable. However, as it stands seven weeks into this, all non-Balkan editors (excluding yourself) yet to chime in find that there was not a consensus here. --Local hero ^talk 05:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I find allegations of nationalism from a user from the country in question that constantly seeks to get into conflict in order to change to preferred terms a bit hypocritical. I have in fact argued against the "Greek national interest", if you could call it that, in the original MOSMAC discussion, not always taking "my country's" approach, as a nationalist would do, unlike some other people. --Antondimak (talk) 07:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Mkdpartizan could have been referring to you, but rather the Greek users [...] that have taken predictable positions on this debate.

And I don't think Mkdpartizan made any distinction with their words:

I believe that the users who are advocating for the article to be called "North Macedonian denar" are doing it due to their nationalistic point of view.

So let me then take a stand... I do strongly advocate for Wikipedia to use the COMMONNAME for the country of North Macedonia as a descriptor of their monetary unit, the denar. Further, I consider the sources that support this usage to be far stronger than those which support any other name. So yes, this closure was most assuredly reasonable. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 11:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TIL that the Bank of Kosovo is "far stronger" than the World Bank, the IMF, the European Central Bank, the EC, etc. --Local hero ^talk 23:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus I do not doubt the abilities and skills of Amakuru, however the discussion was filled with sockpuppets from the get-go. In my opinion, a new discussion should be held (hopefully without sockpuppets this time).Kluche (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus (uninvolved). A discussion this affected by sockpuppetry can't be considered legitimate consensus. A new discussion should be held if editors in good standing want to move the article to North Macedonian denar. I would support semi-protection of the talk page during the RM's run, potentially to be implemented as a WP:ARBEE discretionary sanction page restriction due to the disruption. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]