Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2012 August 19: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
2007–2012 global financial crisis
 
Y256 (talk | contribs)
→‎2007–2012 global financial crisis: Not going to contribute here
Line 11: Line 11:
The admin has not acted in a neutral manner. He requested that pro-move users provide citations for proposed title (which were provided), but did not request them from those who supported the current title (and none have been supplied). Part of determining consensus requires evaluating the strength of arguments, but the admin has abused this authority by making his own argument and deciding that it is stronger than the others. The admin refuses to discuss the issue further on his talk page (and never engaged in discussion with me), so I have made this request. This issue is also discussed on [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#2007.E2.80.932012_global_financial_crisis|ANI]]
The admin has not acted in a neutral manner. He requested that pro-move users provide citations for proposed title (which were provided), but did not request them from those who supported the current title (and none have been supplied). Part of determining consensus requires evaluating the strength of arguments, but the admin has abused this authority by making his own argument and deciding that it is stronger than the others. The admin refuses to discuss the issue further on his talk page (and never engaged in discussion with me), so I have made this request. This issue is also discussed on [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#2007.E2.80.932012_global_financial_crisis|ANI]]
--[[User:Bkwillwm|Bkwillwm]] ([[User talk:Bkwillwm|talk]]) 16:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
--[[User:Bkwillwm|Bkwillwm]] ([[User talk:Bkwillwm|talk]]) 16:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' While I agree with Bkwillwm's every word, I do not accept the validity of reopening this RM here for debate. It is my view that another review would be inconsistent with Wikipedia policy, and I do not intend to contribute to it. Furthermore, I believe this is a matter for AN/I, if not for ArbCom, as the issue has grown to extend beyond the future title of the ''financial crisis'' article. [[User:Yaniv256|&rarr;Yaniv256]]<sup> [[User_talk:Yaniv256|talk]]</sup><sub> [[Special:Contributions/Yaniv256|contribs]]</sub> 18:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:00, 19 August 2012

2012 August 19

2007–2012 global financial crisis

2007–2012 global financial crisis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)}}

The admin (User:RegentsPark) closed the RM and did not move the page despite a consensus that the current title is not suitable and general agreement on a new title. When he first closed the article, the admin ignored the consensus that the article should be moved because there was moderate disagreement over what the alternative title should be (most users were willing to compromise and accept more than one alternative). In talk the admin provided his own unique reason for keeping the title (the dates should cover all possible dates). No one else mentioned this rationale, which means the admin was imposing his own view not interpreting consensus. After complaints, the admin put the discussion "on hold" and had us summarize our arguments. The admin requested sources that used the alternative title, and these were provided from very reputable sources. No sources were provided backing the current title. In this new discussion, no one supported the current title, yet the admin once again closed the discussion and refused to move the page.

The admin has not acted in a neutral manner. He requested that pro-move users provide citations for proposed title (which were provided), but did not request them from those who supported the current title (and none have been supplied). Part of determining consensus requires evaluating the strength of arguments, but the admin has abused this authority by making his own argument and deciding that it is stronger than the others. The admin refuses to discuss the issue further on his talk page (and never engaged in discussion with me), so I have made this request. This issue is also discussed on ANI --Bkwillwm (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment While I agree with Bkwillwm's every word, I do not accept the validity of reopening this RM here for debate. It is my view that another review would be inconsistent with Wikipedia policy, and I do not intend to contribute to it. Furthermore, I believe this is a matter for AN/I, if not for ArbCom, as the issue has grown to extend beyond the future title of the financial crisis article. →Yaniv256 talk contribs 18:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]