→2021 storming of the United States Capitol: following up (ProcrastinatingReader) |
|||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
:::*:That depends on if there's anything to challenge, {{u|El C}}. As far as I can see, your moratorium was to suspend moves ''to'' that title, but not as a means to discount oppose rationales for a different title's RM (which is how Berchanhimez has interpreted it). I don't think you're arguing that such opposes should be discounted per your restriction? [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 05:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC) |
:::*:That depends on if there's anything to challenge, {{u|El C}}. As far as I can see, your moratorium was to suspend moves ''to'' that title, but not as a means to discount oppose rationales for a different title's RM (which is how Berchanhimez has interpreted it). I don't think you're arguing that such opposes should be discounted per your restriction? [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 05:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC) |
||
::::::{{u|ProcrastinatingReader}}, what I'm saying that if you "disagree" with my ACDS action to the point that you wish to challenge it, ARCA is that-a-way. But, yes, again, the only thing the moratorium does is disallow launching a new RM about it before the moratorium lapses. However way a closer approaches closing a ''different'' RM isn't really something that they can invoke that ACDS action for, except in so far as that RM's outcome can't yet be to move to "insurrection." [[User:El_C|El_C]] 06:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC) |
::::::{{u|ProcrastinatingReader}}, what I'm saying that if you "disagree" with my ACDS action to the point that you wish to challenge it, ARCA is that-a-way. But, yes, again, the only thing the moratorium does is disallow launching a new RM about it before the moratorium lapses. However way a closer approaches closing a ''different'' RM isn't really something that they can invoke that ACDS action for, except in so far as that RM's outcome can't yet be to move to "insurrection." [[User:El_C|El_C]] 06:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC) |
||
::::::Also, I doubt it'd do that much harm at this point for me to reveal that I, myself, believe "insurrection" to be the <u>best</u> title (''by far''). Which could have been gleaned from my choice of words in [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Insurrectionists'_gallows]]. But, unfortunately, it didn't enjoy consensus in the [[Talk:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol/Archive_11#Requested_move_16_January_2021|Jan 16 RM]], and that's that. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 06:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC) |
|||
====[[:COVID-19 misinformation]]==== |
====[[:COVID-19 misinformation]]==== |
Revision as of 06:19, 4 February 2021
2021 February
2021 storming of the United States Capitol
- 2021 storming of the United States Capitol (talk||history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)
This is going to be a long one. I first would like to point out the guide for closing RM's as a non admin, which states that a non-admin close should only occur if the consensus or lack thereof is clear after a full listing period (seven days)
. I do not feel that this was "clear" in any way - there are many nuances in this RM (some of which the closer failed to take into account) that suggest that an admin closure would be better. Regardless, my primary concerns are not with the non-admin closure, but with the following:
- Following the previous RM, User:El C closed the RM and placed an arbitration discretionary sanction against discussion of "insurrection" for the page title for one month. Many (at least dozens) of editors in this RM were solely or primarily advocating for "insurrection" in the title. While no administrator stepped in during the RM to enforce this discretionary sanction, the closer of the discussion should've done their part to enforce the discretionary sanction by discounting/ignoring any !votes that wholly or primarily advocated for an "insurrection" title.
- Many (most?) !votes were based solely on original research. There were a plethora of !votes that, instead of providing any policy based reason to not accept the move request, simply stated in no uncertain terms that the editor felt that the title "wasn't accurate" or "was too lenient in describing the events". Some of these !votes overlap with those which should be prohibited per the ACDS against "insurrection", but many of them were of the form "riot isn't adequate because I don't feel it's accurate compared to storming" - which is not a policy based reason to not move the page and should be discounteed.
- Of those !votes that provided a policy based reason to move, a majority referenced WP:COMMONNAME. There were many analyses done of the common name, but virtually all of them led to the end result of "riot" being the most common name being used in news (not just headlines) at this time to describe the events of that day. The closer expressed that they felt that "concern that the title "riot" puts the emphasis on the wrong thing or incorrectly describes the subject of their article" was a valid reason to discount WP:COMMONNAME - it is not. The closer did not identify how the WP:COMMONNAME in this instance would violate any of the five criteria for naming an article - nor did a vast majority of editors who were arguing against "riot" as the name.
- The closer claimed in their response to my challenge that "Wikipedians absolutely get to decide what the subject of an article is" - which I don't disagree with. What Wikipedians don't get to do, however, is decide what the WP:COMMONNAME is for that subject. This shows that the closer considers that personal opinion as to the appropriate title may override common names - which shows they do not appreciate that Wikipedia follows reliable sources, not what Wikipedians "want" the subject to be.
For all of these reasons, I feel that the close should be overturned and re-closed by someone else, and at a minimum, the eventual close should be required to explain the !vote analysis in more detail. The title of this article is contentious and would greatly benefit from trying to find consensus in the current RM, rather than continuing to find "no consensus" in 50 RMs to follow. I firmly believe that there was likely at least a weak consensus for a move here when considering my points above and the analyses on the page, and discounting !votes that violated the AC/DS placed by El C, but I at a minimum think that the closer's argument that there was a consensus against "riot" is inaccurate and should be overturned. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Note of a forked discussion here. I addressed some of these points there. I don't have an endorse/overturn position; I don't particularly agree with the closing comment, but I do think there was no consensus to move. I also disagree with the idea that AC/DS (a system to manage conduct, sanctions implemented as unilateral admin actions) can be used to discount votes in an RfC. AC/DS, and ArbCom (the source of its authority), have no say in content decisions. The moratorium is legitimate, but I think it's distinct from whether opposes on the basis of another title being better is legitimate. That's tantamount to a forced compromise, which would be invalid. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Okay...? Do I refactor about how this isn't my first WP:ACDS-imposed move moratorium and how I doubt it's gonna be my last, and all the other things I said...? I guess I can just link to the diff. But I don't like having a split discussion happening like this. El_C 05:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- It wasn't my intent to fork the discussion, because I felt they were separate (DS discussion versus move review) - but if you feel any of my comments are better on this page I give you whole permission to refactor any of mine to this page you feel need to be to keep discussion on topic - I obviously trust your judgement at this point El C :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- As I just noted on the article talk page, but maybe it bears repeating here: the venue to challenge logged ACDS action is WP:ARCA. El_C 05:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- That depends on if there's anything to challenge, El C. As far as I can see, your moratorium was to suspend moves to that title, but not as a means to discount oppose rationales for a different title's RM (which is how Berchanhimez has interpreted it). I don't think you're arguing that such opposes should be discounted per your restriction? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- ProcrastinatingReader, what I'm saying that if you "disagree" with my ACDS action to the point that you wish to challenge it, ARCA is that-a-way. But, yes, again, the only thing the moratorium does is disallow launching a new RM about it before the moratorium lapses. However way a closer approaches closing a different RM isn't really something that they can invoke that ACDS action for, except in so far as that RM's outcome can't yet be to move to "insurrection." El_C 06:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Also, I doubt it'd do that much harm at this point for me to reveal that I, myself, believe "insurrection" to be the best title (by far). Which could have been gleaned from my choice of words in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Insurrectionists'_gallows. But, unfortunately, it didn't enjoy consensus in the Jan 16 RM, and that's that. El_C 06:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- As I just noted on the article talk page, but maybe it bears repeating here: the venue to challenge logged ACDS action is WP:ARCA. El_C 05:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Okay...? Do I refactor about how this isn't my first WP:ACDS-imposed move moratorium and how I doubt it's gonna be my last, and all the other things I said...? I guess I can just link to the diff. But I don't like having a split discussion happening like this. El_C 05:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
COVID-19 misinformation
- COVID-19 misinformation (talk||history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (No discussion on closer's talk page)
I'm sorry but this Requested move occurred way too fast, as it was closed 2 days into the WP:RM, and it was closed by a new user who has, as of this moment, has 47 edits. It needs to be reopened and let the full 7 days occur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starzoner (talk • contribs) 00:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)