Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/26 November 2011/Universal Serial Bus

Where is the dispute?
Talk:USB

Who is involved?
The list of the users involved. For example:


 * User:RegentsPark
 * User:Thumperward
 * User:Music Sorter
 * User:Jenks24
 * User:R'n'B
 * User:W Nowicki
 * User:CWenger
 * User:Crispmuncher

What is the dispute?
Page had a longstanding home at Universal Serial Bus. A move request to USB was filed, naming policy was referenced and there was a clear majority against bearing that policy in mind. Closing admin ruled in favour of the move citing WP:COMMONNAME and WP:TITLEFORMAT, arguing this satisfied the "almost exclusive" test of WP:TITLEFORMAT that over-rides the presumption against initialisms in the article article. The sole reference to a reliable source in the debate was for the full form of the title. This was not a point that had been tendered by the pro-move in the discussion and therefore the closing admin implicitly involved himself in the debate in his closing remarks. In the absence of a consensus convention is against a move, in which case the improperly made move should be undone and this restored to its old home.

What steps have you already taken to try and resolve the dispute?
Extensive discussion at Talk:USB ensued, during which the hitherto unraised point of the almost exclusive test was debated. Statistics were offered whose relevance was challenged but themselves seem to show a lack of exclusivity - the Google hits figures cited fall well short of the comparable acceptable cases given as examples.

What issues needs to be addressed to help resolve the dispute
Despite repeated further invitations for more concrete evidence that would satisfy normal Wikipedia sourcing rules the pro-move editors have failed to provide any evidence in support of this assertion. If informal mediation demonstrates to all users this matter is always subject to review and counter-arguments must be addressed then this is a positive outcome in and of itself.

What can we do to help resolve this issue?
Review debate so far and evaluate application of policy and the evaluation of consensus both before and after the formal closing of the move discussion.

Administrative notes
Having a glance over the talk page, it appears that this issue has not been discussed for quite some time, say, approximately two months. Is there any particular reason this has been filed now? I'll also from a procedural point that the best thing in a normal situation would be to bring it up with the closing administrator (which in this case has been done). Perhaps another requested move could be opened, if only to test if consensus (and I say consensus in line with policy, not voting). Without commenting on the merits of the arguments at the requested move, an administrator is not required to close a discussion in favour of the majority if the majority make arguments that are not in line with policy. But I think perhaps opening another RM for a period of time and seeing how that goes would be best. It should be a structured discussion, with the two alternative titles clearly outlined, and the evidence and policies that support each title be clearly presented, and then !vote. That's the best way to get a true consensus. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking....  22:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I concur entirely with Steven and am closing this listing as, mainly, premature since no prior DR has been attempted per our Case prerequisites but also also for no current dispute. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)