Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Yoghurt

No thanks
I've never been involved in a MedCom case, so forgive me of this is in the wrong place. I just wanted to say that I will not be participating in this. This does not seem to be an attempt at mediation (I don't think mediation is required anyway – the discussion was pretty good-natured), but rather the nominator trying to find another forum so he/she can get his/her own way. This is obvious from the first line: "The article 'Yoghurt' needs to be moved back to 'Yogurt'." As I pointed out at the RM, I disagree and I also disagree with this forum shopping. The closing admin's call was no consensus (quite rightly, IMO), so you are free to start another RM in a few months if this is really such a massive problem. Jenks24 (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why even have a chain of dispute resolution if it can't be used? As I see it, you were the only person with a valid reason to Keep the article in the entire discussion (I'm glad someone did), but I believe you have come down on the wrong side of the debate if you look at a preponderance of the evidence given. If nothing else, I believe the move discussion should be reopened. -Kai445 (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Because there is no dispute. You wanted the title changed, there was no consensus in favour, it wasn't changed. This is not a dispute, this is "waaaah I didn't get my way waaaaaah." → ROUX   ₪  22:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't forum shopping. If there's truly no consensus, lets build towards one. Thank you for your constructive opinion. -Kai445 (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the very definition of forum shopping. You didn't get the result you wanted, so now you're pretending there's a dispute. The only dispute here is the problem you have with failing to understand the very simple concept: no consensus to change = no change. → ROUX   ₪  21:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the dispute is about whether there really is no consensus. Certainly if you count !votes there is no consensus among those participating, but we're not supposed to do that.  We're supposed to look at the quality of the arguments, and, in particular, how well they reflect community consensus as reflected in policy, guidelines and conventions.  It is on this point that the closing admin asserted there were strong arguments on both sides... that's the basis for finding "no consensus".  That's a reasonable finding, except in this case the claim that there were strong arguments on the oppose side is in dispute, and the closing admin either refuses or is unable to expound on his claim.  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So your arguments for a move are not convincing enough to tackle the arguments against a move. If there is no clear broad accepted reason nor a clear majority to support the move, there will be no move. Simple and clear. Night of the Big Wind  talk  22:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, if it was clear that the the "arguments for a move are not convincing enough to tackle the arguments against a move", that would be reasonable and understandable. But that's not at all clear.  The closing admin asserted that to be the case, but when asked to expound (in an attempt to clear this up) - specifically regarding what are the strong oppose arguments - he either refuses or is unable to respond. That suggests the decision was not made based on the arguments at all, but with bias and prejudice (perhaps unintentionally, but there it is).  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Or he is just sick of your guys attemps to reopen the case... Night of the Big Wind  talk  07:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, supposedly he is uninvolved and, if so, it's way too early for him to already be sick of anything related to this issue. If he was aware of this issue and already sick of it, that's just more reason  for him to have closed it. Again, he closed on the basis that there were strong arguments on both sides.  All we did was ask him to specify what the strong arguments were on the oppose side, and he has refused to do so, or is unable. This is not an attempt to re-open - it's an attempt to get a good close.  We can get that from this admin, or from another admin.  So far it's his choice.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No thanks too
I agree with Jenks24 that this is a case of pushing and forumshopping. A quick head count brought me to 8 supports and 11 against.

The invited list by Kai445: Just 12 people out of the 19 involved in the lastest discussion. But 6 pro, 6 against and one "stranger".
 * Kai445 filing party support
 * Born2cycle support
 * SchmuckyTheCat support
 * Peregrine Fisher '''not involved in the lastest discussion
 * Knorrepoes oppose
 * Yngvadottir oppose
 * Laveol oppose
 * Night of the Big Wind oppose
 * Jenks24 oppose
 * Vegaswikian support
 * PeterWD oppose
 * AnimatedZebra support
 * ErikHaugen support

Forgotten: 7 participants in the discussion, of which two IP's (evenly distributed), 1 pro and 4 against
 * Macrakis oppose
 * DTXBrian support
 * Roux oppose
 * Boneyard90 oppose
 * IP-number: support
 * Absconded Northerner oppose
 * IP-number: oppose

So not only forumshopping, also cherrypicking in his opponents. That is not by any form a decent way of acting, so I have to reject the mediation. Besides that, as the mediation decides different from Kai445 opinion, I have the strong feeling that he will ignore the mediation... Night of the Big Wind talk  16:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If I was cherrypicking, why would I have missed the editors in support? You're seeing what you want to see. Way to assume good faith. WP:DICK -Kai445 (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You have no better arguments then shouting and roaring? Then you loose instantly! The two guys pro were a IP and someone without a user page. The 6 you have chosen are 4 people without English as first language (2x Dutch, 1x Bulgary, 1x Iceland). The four opposes you left out, all have English as first language. Night of the Big Wind  talk  17:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Who's shouting? Your reply doesn't support your accusation that I was cherrypicking. If I was cherrypicking, why would I have chosen to include all of those with English as a second language in the RfM, but exclude those with English as a first language? Wouldn't it have made more sense for me to do the opposite? -Kai445 (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I have yet to see a valid case for keeping the article.
Where is the empassioned debate from the "Keep" side?

"Things like this are decided on the merits." - Yngvadottir

What are the merits of keeping the article where it is? Let me go through each Oppose.

Valid reasons for keep:
 * As the google stats below show, academic sources in Australia and the UK still vastly prefer yoghurt. Clear case of WP:ENGVAR to me. - Jenks24
 * This is true, academia in Aus and UK do show a clear preference for "Yoghurt". But academia in each country is a small portion of the population, and in each of the aforementioned countries, there is still sufficient reason to believe "Yogurt" is more dominant. (The Dairy industry in both countries use "Yogurt". WP:GOOGLE of the respective TLD's show no clear preference for "Yoghurt". The largest manufacturers in both countries use "Yogurt". etc...)

Invalid reasons for keep:
 * This has been much discussed, but the present spelling is a liveable compromise and the article itself fairly explains the variety of usage in different English-speaking countries. Moving it to the US spelling would only reflect what is common in the US. - Yngvadottir
 * Liveable compromise between whom? If there was a liveable compromise, we would not have seen five or more move requests. What and where is the proof of WP:COMMONNAME?


 * Anybody searching for the alternative spelling will end up here. I do not see any reasons to move it since, as Yngvadottir already pointed out, the spelling is explained in the article. - Laveol
 * I am happy to see that regional variations are explained in the article, but what makes "Yoghurt" the best possible name for the article? The article title should be the most common.


 * "Too much (electronic) ink has been spilled over this trivial issue. The status quo is fine. "Yoghurt" is the most common spelling in some parts of the English-speaking world, "yogurt" in others.[citation needed] (PS, I think you meant to refer to WP:COMMONNAME, not WP:COMMON)" --Macrakis
 * SchmuckyTheCat explains this best: "Saying too much ink has spilled, and the status quo is fine are contradictory. If it is a trivial issue, fix it."


 * Agree with the upper three arguments. I see no reason why to change it. Knorrepoes
 * This author adds nothing to the discussion other than a nod to three editors that did not make a case to Keep.


 * unless you think WP:COMMON means 'common in the USA.' Feh. There is not one good reason for moving this page. → ROUX
 * Where is "Yoghurt" more common? Stating there is "not one good reason" flies in the face of reason... people who use "Yogurt" (as per WP:GOOGLE), references (Dictionaries, Encyclopedias), trade associations, manufacturers, all use "Yogurt" more predominantly, in more places, and in sheer number.


 * Several other languages also use "Yoghurt", for instance in Swedish, Norse (2x), Dutch. - Night of the Big Wind
 * Which has nothing to do with the English language. This is English Wikipedia.


 * Oppose the change, and oppose the US-bashing as well. - Boneyard90
 * No reason is given to oppose the move.


 * Oppose per WP:ENGVAR. I've never seen it spelled without the "h" until today. Absconded Northerner
 * As per WP:ENGVAR, we should be defaulting the article back to its original spelling. Never seeing it before without the "h" is no reason to oppose, you need to keep in mind that Wikipedia is international.


 * I have also never seen it without the h, so it should be in it. 137.224.252.10
 * An IP address should not even be considered, but in any case, no argument is made to keep.


 * My copy of Concise Oxford Dictionary shows Yoghurt as preferred over Yogurt - that's good enough for me. PeterWD
 * The current edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary, assuming the author had the latest available version, is still older than the current edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. The current OED shows Yogurt as the primary entry, and Yoghurt as a variant.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kai445 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong solution
The problem here is a bad call by a closing admin in a case that really needed a good call. That cannot be addressed with mediation among the parties that participated in the discussion.

We all know and agree that WP is not a democracy, and that consensus is determined by strength of arguments. In RM discussions that means arguments based on policy and guidelines, which is based on the premise that those policies and guidelines reflect the broad consensus of the community.

That's why it's so important to clarify what is meant by statements like, "there are strong arguments in favour of both", which is what the closing admin stated in justification of his "no consensus" call. The call about whether it's "no consensus" should not be pure opinion. Even if we disagree, we should at least be able to understand why the closing admin ruled the way he did. In this case when pressed all he could cite was the "11 opposes", but nothing specific about what even one strong opposing argument was. We even referenced the collaborative section of the discussion which listed 13 points in favor of the move, and only 2 against, one weak, and one totally lame. We had a legitimate beef not with the reasoning used in this closing, but with the apparent absence of reasoning used in this closing. That's where the focus needs to be.

The solution here is not mediation, but to revert the inexplicable close to give another closing admin the chance to close it reasonably, one way or another. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * So what is the proper venue on Wikipedia if not an RfM? (Which, this may not be, judging by the responses so far. I could have sworn it met the criteria, though.). -Kai445 (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If your complaint is you simply disagree with an RM decision, there really is no outlet except wait 6 months and try again. If your complaint is that the closer did something wrong (which is what I'm saying - see above), then you can just revert the close and let someone else close it. Either someone else will then re-evaluate and close one way or another, or your unclose will be reclosed without further analysis (as what happened to my unclose).  If no one cares enough to undo the unclose (as is the case so far), there it ends, and all you can do is wait 6 months to try again.  If someone else does undo the unclose, we're back to either another admin will take a lock, or someone else will simply reclose.  Either way, if it gets to that, it's probably time for WP:ANI at that time. In short, unless enough of us our sufficiently outraged by the closer's lame argument to repeatedly reopen the discussion until it's properly closed, there is no recourse.   --Born2cycle (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Better to ask the closer to step back and let someone else close. Point out why the decision was bad in your request on the closers talk page.  Reverting an admin is a bad practice and for an admin to do so is wheel warring. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean ask the closer to undo his own close? Good luck with that.  But yeah, it's worth a try.  If he refuses, then I guess all you can do is file a request for an RM close review at WP:ANI.  But in my experience they usually give the closing admin the benefit of the doubt, but once in a while a decision is reversed. By the way, I know of at least one other recent case where this guy had his close reverted .   --Born2cycle (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That fact that someone has had closes reversed is not germane to the discussion here. Any admin who closes controversial discussions is going to have complains and some will be reopened or reversed.  I don't think that reflects on the admins intentions to be fair and objective.  Vegaswikian (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, that close was reverted by someone who was heavily involved. I don't think we should take that as evidence that he has a history of poor closures. Jenks24 (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the point is that there is no clear and obvious recourse for what to do in a case where the closing admin refuses (or is incapable) to justify his decision. I mean, when you claim both sides have strong arguments, you don't have to identify what they are - in most cases it's obvious.  But in this case that assertion was challenged precisely because it's not obvious that there were any strong arguments on the oppose side, at least to some of us.  So take a few minutes and explain which of the oppose arguments seemed strong to you. Why won't he do that?  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)