|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Concern that the closure and move was undertaken prematurely, while contested, rather than re-listed. The particulars are given in the talk page of the closer. In brief, User:Piotrus opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discrimination#"Ethnic issues in" vs "Racism in" problem asking for opinions on a potential future move of "Ethnic Discrimination in Ethiopia", without informing the people there he had actually already opened an RM discussion there as well. I strongly disagreed with the move in a discussion in one venue, awaiting his answers patiently there, unaware he had already initiated an RM and was conducting the same discussion elsewhere. It was nearly a week later that one of the participants informed us at the Wikiproject that Piotrus had opened an RM, and that there were two discussions going on simultaneously on the same page move. I promptly transferred my contentions to the RM. I strongly objected to the move. But a day later, the closer User:Jack Frost closed and moved it, without comment. My contention was simply ignored, and no time was given to discuss it further there. While it is true seven days had passed since the RM was opened, and the closer could not have guessed two discussions had been going on simultaneously in two different venues, I explained the circumstance and asked that he reopen and relist, giving users more time than one day to actually look at the new evidence and arguments against the move that were transferred from one venue to the other. The closer declined and said there was a "clear consensus", despite my vigorous contention and RS evidence disputing it. He also said that he was not obligated to provide closing comments. He provided no further criteria, other than just reiterate his "assessment of consensus" was correct. How the closer came to that conclusion, I am not sure. It was certainly not by weight of arguments or evidence - although admittedly the closer did not say it was. The mover provided no RS's, nor referred to any criteria, nor any evidence, just asserted his intuitive hunch that "ethnic discrimination" is a political euphemism for "racism". While there were !votes that concurred, none provided any additional argument. Instead, it was easily shown that the overwhelming and consistent characterization of Ethiopian conflicts as "ethnic" or "ethno-linguistic" in RSs. Not a single RS was produced characterizing it as racial or racism. Given the sorry history of 19th C. "scientists" arbitrarily inventing and assigning "races" to native groups in other countries, this should be taken a little more seriously and not just come down to someone's hunch. Particularly not after objections are brought up, just ignored and zipped up in a day. To me it sounds and feels like a WP:SUPERVOTE, more by neglect than interest. Given the circumstances, the closer should have relisted and allowed for more time rather than closed and moved. Walrasiad ( talk) 23:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Hello, my concern is that the close at
Talk:Killing_of_Rachel_Nickell#Requested_move_16_March_2021 was based on a
vote count and
WP:SUPERVOTE. All of the Support votes came in before the relevant
Shooting_or_Death_or_Killing_or_Murder? article naming RfC was mentioned. After the RfC was mentioned, the editor who initiated the move request said they were unaware of the RfC before, then crossed out their initial concerns and said To make sure I understood the RfC close correctly, I also asked the RfC closer,
Barkeep49, for further clarification at
User_talk:Barkeep49#Murder_or_killing? to see if the RfC applies to cases such as the Rachel Nickell one (where the killer was convicted of manslaughter, but reliable sources and WP:COMMONNAME all say murder), and they responded that the Right when the 7th day passed, the requested move discussion was swiftly closed with one sentence, which I felt ignored the article naming policies and guidelines mentioned above and was based on a vote count and WP:SUPERVOTE instead. I would like the move closure to be overturned. Thank you. Some1 ( talk) 02:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The support to move the page was all subjective. The comments were because the name was ugly or did not align with an example from another company. The full name of this company is Connect, powered by American Family Insurance. If additional sources are needed, it should be marked on the page and not moved because an editor thought the name was ugly. Brenda haines ( talk) 19:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Buidhe did not accurately assess the consensus based on sources, policies and arguments provided. They've mistakingly cited WP:MODERNPLACENAME as a reason to not move, claiming that opposing side has provided 2 recent reliable sources (claimed this in their talk page), yet this ignores the fact that one of those sources is 17-years-old while other is 5-years-old, compared to 5 recent WP:RS sources, as well as a wide WP:GOOGLETEST I provided. — CuriousGolden (T· C) 17:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This was closed due to a lack of objections, but another user ( Dicklyon) has since objected to it at WP:RM/TR. So now, we should consider reopening and relisting this RM to give the chance for other users to support or oppose it. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 22:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Closer reverted his close, so discussion is open again. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC) |
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
There was a WP:SUPERVOTE, and also there are both supports and opposes that make the discussion controversial. I recommend letting an administrator do the closure instead. See also WP:RM/TR (the last edit before removing the contested request resulting in this move review). GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 16:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Concern that the closure and move was undertaken prematurely, while contested, rather than re-listed. The particulars are given in the talk page of the closer. In brief, User:Piotrus opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discrimination#"Ethnic issues in" vs "Racism in" problem asking for opinions on a potential future move of "Ethnic Discrimination in Ethiopia", without informing the people there he had actually already opened an RM discussion there as well. I strongly disagreed with the move in a discussion in one venue, awaiting his answers patiently there, unaware he had already initiated an RM and was conducting the same discussion elsewhere. It was nearly a week later that one of the participants informed us at the Wikiproject that Piotrus had opened an RM, and that there were two discussions going on simultaneously on the same page move. I promptly transferred my contentions to the RM. I strongly objected to the move. But a day later, the closer User:Jack Frost closed and moved it, without comment. My contention was simply ignored, and no time was given to discuss it further there. While it is true seven days had passed since the RM was opened, and the closer could not have guessed two discussions had been going on simultaneously in two different venues, I explained the circumstance and asked that he reopen and relist, giving users more time than one day to actually look at the new evidence and arguments against the move that were transferred from one venue to the other. The closer declined and said there was a "clear consensus", despite my vigorous contention and RS evidence disputing it. He also said that he was not obligated to provide closing comments. He provided no further criteria, other than just reiterate his "assessment of consensus" was correct. How the closer came to that conclusion, I am not sure. It was certainly not by weight of arguments or evidence - although admittedly the closer did not say it was. The mover provided no RS's, nor referred to any criteria, nor any evidence, just asserted his intuitive hunch that "ethnic discrimination" is a political euphemism for "racism". While there were !votes that concurred, none provided any additional argument. Instead, it was easily shown that the overwhelming and consistent characterization of Ethiopian conflicts as "ethnic" or "ethno-linguistic" in RSs. Not a single RS was produced characterizing it as racial or racism. Given the sorry history of 19th C. "scientists" arbitrarily inventing and assigning "races" to native groups in other countries, this should be taken a little more seriously and not just come down to someone's hunch. Particularly not after objections are brought up, just ignored and zipped up in a day. To me it sounds and feels like a WP:SUPERVOTE, more by neglect than interest. Given the circumstances, the closer should have relisted and allowed for more time rather than closed and moved. Walrasiad ( talk) 23:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Hello, my concern is that the close at
Talk:Killing_of_Rachel_Nickell#Requested_move_16_March_2021 was based on a
vote count and
WP:SUPERVOTE. All of the Support votes came in before the relevant
Shooting_or_Death_or_Killing_or_Murder? article naming RfC was mentioned. After the RfC was mentioned, the editor who initiated the move request said they were unaware of the RfC before, then crossed out their initial concerns and said To make sure I understood the RfC close correctly, I also asked the RfC closer,
Barkeep49, for further clarification at
User_talk:Barkeep49#Murder_or_killing? to see if the RfC applies to cases such as the Rachel Nickell one (where the killer was convicted of manslaughter, but reliable sources and WP:COMMONNAME all say murder), and they responded that the Right when the 7th day passed, the requested move discussion was swiftly closed with one sentence, which I felt ignored the article naming policies and guidelines mentioned above and was based on a vote count and WP:SUPERVOTE instead. I would like the move closure to be overturned. Thank you. Some1 ( talk) 02:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The support to move the page was all subjective. The comments were because the name was ugly or did not align with an example from another company. The full name of this company is Connect, powered by American Family Insurance. If additional sources are needed, it should be marked on the page and not moved because an editor thought the name was ugly. Brenda haines ( talk) 19:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Buidhe did not accurately assess the consensus based on sources, policies and arguments provided. They've mistakingly cited WP:MODERNPLACENAME as a reason to not move, claiming that opposing side has provided 2 recent reliable sources (claimed this in their talk page), yet this ignores the fact that one of those sources is 17-years-old while other is 5-years-old, compared to 5 recent WP:RS sources, as well as a wide WP:GOOGLETEST I provided. — CuriousGolden (T· C) 17:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This was closed due to a lack of objections, but another user ( Dicklyon) has since objected to it at WP:RM/TR. So now, we should consider reopening and relisting this RM to give the chance for other users to support or oppose it. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 22:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Closer reverted his close, so discussion is open again. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC) |
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
There was a WP:SUPERVOTE, and also there are both supports and opposes that make the discussion controversial. I recommend letting an administrator do the closure instead. See also WP:RM/TR (the last edit before removing the contested request resulting in this move review). GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 16:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |