Christopher Wilson (reporter) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

For context and background, the subject redirect Christopher Wilson (reporter) was originally targeted to Rebel News, but subsequently found following the latter's page move from The Rebel Media. There was no context to which this redirect was targeted there, so it, along with Sheila Gunn Reid (which closed as "delete"), was subsequently nominated for discussion at RfD. In terms of assessing its usefulness and utility as a plausible search term and redirect per WP:R#K5, or lack thereof per WP:R#D8, it generated all of 22 views. For context, for redirects deleted on similar grounds, that low of usage typically, in my experience, results in deletion.

Nevertheless, among the arguments presented, Shhhnotloud noted potential for ambiguity and confusion, presumably, per WP:R#D2, and Rosguill noted the lack of a mention. As nominator, I argued for deletion, despite the fact I didn't attach a bolded !vote to my argument, which was that there was no mention, it was an implausible search term demonstrated by its unnecessary disambiguating parenthetical qualifier, and lack of usage. Narky Blert advocated for retargeting to Christopher Wilson (biographer) because the proposed new target subject article was also a journalist and cited recalling a similar requested move discussion, but didn't specifically address the lack of utility and usefulness, when queried, of having a second redirect for a secondary occupation with an unnecessary disambiguating parenthetical qualifier. Subsequent to the January 31st relist, I added comments that the redirect was created by a sockpuppet account VivaSlava, which, while not yet discovered at the time of its creation, was created by a banned sockpuppeteer in Charles lindberg, for which I cited was "crud."

Presumably, due to an administrative backlog, it wasn't relisted or actioned a second time, but nevertheless, BDD added the argument on February 10th, noting that this Christopher Wilson (presumably there was a non-notable Christopher Wilson that worked for Rebel News) was fairly well known for his secondary occupation. Nevertheless, all five participants (including myself) expressed equally solid arguments based on policy, guidelines, and common sense. There was some degree of consensus, albeit light consensus, to deleting this redirect, if you equally weight all the arguments. Even if giving extra weight to BDD's and Narky Blert's arguments, as I explained on the closer's talk page, that would still get you to a "no consensus" close, to which the closer explained to me, "'No consensus' was not an option since no one advocated that the redirect be kept as is." That's true, in that no one was arguing for keeping this redirect at the current target, but as I stated in reply, a no consensus result was still viable as a closing option, and that since it was unsuitable, the closer could've retargeted boldly after closing as "no consensus." It seems to me that in order to get to towards a retarget result, there had to have been one of four things happening, either (a) the closer applied a super vote, which I doubt was the case, (b) the closer incorrectly ruled out a "no consensus" result despite there not being a clear consensus towards retargeting in the discussion, (c) the closer inadvertently discounted my lack of a bolded !vote in assessing the arguments, or (d) there was an incorrect assessment of the relative weights of the participants' arguments.

So, my question is as follows: what does a "no consensus" result mean, and does that mean it can be ruled out when no one is arguing for keeping the redirect at the current target?

While it was a close close, I'm actually not advocating overturning because Steel1943 is an experienced editor and non-admin closer, who has completed solid closes. I don't necessarily disagree with the outcome, but disagree with the interpretation of the consensus. Thus, my preference would be for Option A.

Should we:

• Option A - Endorse outcome, but amend result to no consensus (preferred);
• Option B - Overturn to no consensus;
• Option C - Overturn to delete;
• Option D - Relist;
• Option E - Something else
  -- Doug Mehus T· C 01:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Closer comment: Here's the comment I stated to Dmehus on my talk page:

  "No consensus" was not an option since no one advocated that the redirect be kept as is. The "delete" comments were based on there not being mention of a "Christopher Wilson" at Rebel News. Multiple participants made arguments that the subject at Christopher Wilson (biographer) is also a reporter and an appropriate option for retargeting since the redirect could refer to Christopher Wilson (biographer) and not be ambiguous. Even one of the first "delete" comments acknowledged the existence of Christopher Wilson (biographer) and of it as a plausible option. The close was based on existing subjects on Wikipedia at the present time; if another subject is created later, the redirect can be retargeted to Chris Wilson (the target of redirect Christopher Wilson) as a {{ R from incomplete disambiguation}} since that would satisfy the primary concern presented by the discussion participants, and there shouldn't need be another discussion for that.

  ...And yes, per Dmehus, I offered that they consider WP:DRV if they still did not agree with my close, but I find it rather peculiar that they brought it here still after stating they would not... then a few hours later, apparently, changed their mind. (I have a feeling that this DRV is in response to a completely unrelated discussion, but since it is at worst a red herring, that's as far as I care to reference it.) I also find it rather peculiar that Dmehus did not include a straight-up "endorse" as one of the "options" ... makes it sound like they by default have already decided that my close, in its entirety, is wrong ... ... Steel1943 ( talk) 02:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply

  • For clarity, I didn't include an "endorse" because I'm not advocating "endorse the result". I'm not saying the end outcome is problematic; rather, it's only the result with which I disagree. Participants are entitled to "endorse" in whichever matter they choose, but I would appreciate, then, getting some clarity as to how there is consensus here. Doug Mehus T· C 03:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply

    • ...So, as the closer, I obviously endorse my close without any changes to the close ... even thought for some reason, that is not one of the options presented by Dmehus. (Correction: Apparently, it's "Option E".) Steel1943 ( talk) 02:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply

In response to Steel1943's added comment, yes, I did say it may not be worth pursuing at DRV, but truthfully, I am unsatisfied by the response I received vis-a-vis the consensus determination. The "multiple participants" referencing that there was no ambiguity numbered two; Shhhnotsoloud said it was "ambiguous" and did not, explicitly, endorse retargeting. The fact that Shhhnotsoloud did not specifically endorse retargeting could be evidence that, though plausible yes, they didn't see the utility to endorse retaining the redirect. Those arguing how it was of little use, an unnecessary disambiguation qualifier, and potentially confusing, numbered three. I'm not certain how that can be construed as "consensus." Nonetheless, I think it is useful to have this fulsome discussion and fuller airing of things, and get things clarified because I'm just not certain how I see a consensus to retarget. It seems to me, the only way to get to a clear consensus toward retargeting, one has to do one of those four options I mentioned, or "read between the lines" and make guesses. Doug Mehus T· C 02:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• ( edit conflict) Endorse Simply, the only user who argued the redirect shouldn't target Christopher Wilson (biographer) was Dmehus. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply

But that involves mind reading, in that one has to interpret what they think someone might be in favour of, no? The close should be based on the arguments presented, not presumed, no? Doug Mehus T· C 02:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the absolutely correct closure, and recommend that Doug drops the stick. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 04:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Tavix What do you mean by "drop[ping] the stick," though? Several of the commenters below suggest there was only a rough consensus, though, so it wasn't unreasonable to bring it to DRV. RfD discussions go to DRV so infrequently that it's good for the purposes of community audit and review to occasionally have discussions brought there to undergo a finer and wider scrutiny by the community. Equally, if not more, importantly, though, I wanted to get clarified the statement that because no one advocated retaining the redirect at the current target, "no consensus was not an option." That seems to have been clarified below, so my primary motivation for bringing this to DRV has been clarified. Doug Mehus T· C 14:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse both the outcome and the result, and strongly suggest we not waste any more time with this perplexing and futile wikilawyering. Reyk _YO! 06:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse original outcome. Cheers, Polyamorph ( talk) 07:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse because the close was absolutely good enough for its purpose. However, in the ensuing discussion the comment that "No consensus" was not an option since no one advocated that the redirect be kept as is is not correct. A close of no consensus is always an option if the discussion did not arrive at a rough consensus. However, the result of such a close may vary depending on the circumstances. Thincat ( talk) 09:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Fair enough. Maybe I should have worded my response as that "no consensus" was "not really an option" per etc. to allow a bit of ambiguity with my statement. Yeah, now that you mention it, I've seen RfD discussions where multiple retarget options were recommended, resulting in a "no consensus" result of a disambiguation page being created. (In fact, I'm pretty sure I've even closed out discussions in the past to that very result ... specifically something in the "Wikipedia:" namespace ... but I just cannot recall any specific discussions at the moment, considering they most likely happened years ago.) Steel1943 ( talk) 12:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, generally no consensus leads to things being left alone but in this case that would have been silly. I think what you did was fine in the circumstances. Thincat ( talk) 14:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Thincat That's what I am getting at in my nomination, that the fact no one advocated for retaining this redirect at the current target meant that "no consensus" wasn't an option was incorrect, and this was, principally, my reason for bringing this to DRV, to get that point that clarified that it was possible. Consensus was against retaining the redirect at the current target, so that would be a rationale against keeping the redirect, but no consensus is still valid even where the result of which may produce an undesirable outcome. That's why, even though there was, arguably, a rough consensus for deleting the redirect, there wasn't quite a consensus to retargeting. Thus, I thought the closer's boldly retargeting after the close was still reasonable, to avoid keeping the redirect at the current target. Doug Mehus T· C 14:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• If you'd given me that debate and asked me to close it, I'd have found a rough consensus to retarget.— S Marshall  T/ C 11:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Correct close. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse retarget is the rough consensus of that discussion and there's a reasonable argument for it. I don't see any consensus for deleting it, and two of the Delete participants left comments that wouldn't contradict a retarget result. Given the length of the DRV nomination and the rules lawyering in it I was expecting this to be a debate about a contentious article, not a very minor redirect. Hut 8.5 19:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Hut 8.5 Your last sentence gave me a chuckle. Perhaps it would be helpful if you, or anyone really, but you're an experienced administrator/editor and as good as any, could explain the thought process behind the (a) "rough consensus" here and (b) how there's no consensus to deletion despite 3 of 5 editors making solid arguments toward deleting? Doug Mehus T· C 19:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply

I guess I can see a rough consensus toward retargeting, but I can also at least a rough consensus to deletion, too. How do we decide to tip the scale in favour of one or the other and avoid closing as "no consensus"? Doug Mehus T· C 19:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply

If you insist: you were the only person who actually argued for deletion instead of retargeting. The other two just didn't think the previous target was appropriate, and one of them mentioned the biographer article as an alternate target. Those arguments are absolutely consistent with a Retarget close. Your arguments amounted to (a) a previous article at that title was created by a sockpuppet and (b) it doesn't get many page views, neither of those are terribly compelling. Seriously though I suggest you try something more useful instead of arguing over this stuff. Hut 8.5 19:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - As much as I love debates over semantics, I prefer them outside of this venue. Good close.—  Godsy ^{( TALK} _CONT) 10:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. This is silly. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not engage in endless wikilawyering. The original issue was that the target was unrelated to the redirect term. People at XfD agreed with that, but somebody found a better target that made sense, so that was done. Move on and do something useful. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC) reply