Misplaced Pages

:Move review/Log/2024 December: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Move review | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:39, 28 December 2024 editChipmunkdavis (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,606 edits →2024 December: Listing Talk:Timor-Leste← Previous edit Latest revision as of 03:47, 3 January 2025 edit undoSkynxnex (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers26,024 edits →2024 Israeli invasion of Syria: oops math 
(36 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown)
Line 5: Line 5:


Add a new entry BELOW THIS COMMENT – copy and fill in the format: {{subst:move review list|page=<PAGE NAME>|rm_page=<REQUEST PAGE NAME>|rm_section=<SECTION>|closer=<CLOSING EDITOR'S USER NAME>|closer_section=<SECTION OF CLOSER'S TALK PAGE DISCUSSION>|reason=<REASON>}}~~<noinclude></noinclude>~~ --> Add a new entry BELOW THIS COMMENT – copy and fill in the format: {{subst:move review list|page=<PAGE NAME>|rm_page=<REQUEST PAGE NAME>|rm_section=<SECTION>|closer=<CLOSING EDITOR'S USER NAME>|closer_section=<SECTION OF CLOSER'S TALK PAGE DISCUSSION>|reason=<REASON>}}~~<noinclude></noinclude>~~ -->

====]====
:{{move review links|2024 Israeli invasion of Syria|rm_page={{TALKPAGENAME:2024 Israeli invasion of Syria}}|rm_section=Requested move 19 December 2024}} (])
User closed the move request of 19 December, while it was still being actively discussed, with no reasons whatsoever given. User then on ] which involved the original article as well. When others tried to inquire about the move closure on the user's talk page they made no attempt to communicate whatsoever. In turn, I believe that this is a ]. ] ] 20:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Relist''' <small>(involved)</small>. Bad NAC, unresponsive closer. With zero explanation offered for the close, we cannot even attempt to formulate arguments for or against whether it was an appropriate interpretation of consensus. I'm taking no position with regards to how it *should* have been closed here, but I will at least point out that relisting will get more visibility on a discussion that seemingly lacks many of the participants I'd expect to see given the subject matter area (though perhaps the pending ARBPIA5 has something to do with that). ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 21:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Relist''' <small>(uninvolved)</small> per SUPERVOTE, BACNAC, no rationale, also no correspondence even though they have edited WP since being pinged. Not the first time they've had a questionable NAC. ]&thinsp;] 01:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' <small>(uninvolved)</small> It is difficult to make the case that any other closer would decide differently to either moved or even no consensus when there are only 8 !votes in favor (including nom) and 11 !votes against. ] (]) 08:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Actually 7 because the nom voted in addition, and 11 oppose, isn’t a huge spread, and with one less on each side for being non EC. ]&thinsp;] 09:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Consensus is not about counting votes, but counting arguments, ]. ] (]) 12:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::That wasn’t the basis for my decision and !vote but rather just commentary on the numbers as presented by the other user. However, identifying non-ec users are material. ]&thinsp;] 15:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Exactly.
*'''Relist('''uninvolved) also possible administrative action against the closer? Or at least a warning. ] (]) 21:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I don't think a bad NAC merits administrative action, they just need to not do it again until they're familiar with the process and can give the level of responsiveness necessary. ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 21:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Relist''' (uninvolved): close was done nearly <del>8</del> 32 hours early and was not clear enough of a consensus to justify that. <small>think I got the math right now?</small> ] (]) 03:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


====]==== ====]====
:{{move review links|Timor-Leste|rm_page={{TALKPAGENAME:Timor-Leste}}|rm_section=Requested move 16 December 2024}} (]) :{{move review links|Timor-Leste|rm_page={{TALKPAGENAME:Timor-Leste}}|rm_section=Requested move 16 December 2024}} (])
This discussion was not closed by an assessment of the discussion, but by a supervote: "I am satisfied that "Timor Leste" is now the dominant term". The close contained not only the individual analysis leading to this view, but also pointed towards commentary made at another close to bolster the argument. What the close does not have is any evaluation of the participants' discussion. There has been some post-close commentary about a potential relisting, but either way the move request should be re-closed with an assessment of consensus. ] (]) 01:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC) This discussion was not closed by an assessment of the discussion, but by a supervote: "I am satisfied that "Timor Leste" is now the dominant term". The close contained not only the individual analysis leading to this view, but also pointed towards commentary made at another close to bolster the argument. What the close does not have is any evaluation of the participants' discussion. There has been some post-close commentary about a potential relisting, but either way the move request should be re-closed with an assessment of consensus. ] (]) 01:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

* '''Overturn'''. Supervote and BADNAC. I read a strong “no consensus”. Non admins should not be closing contentious discussions. A closer beginning their rationale by citing their previous closes is a plain claim to being INVOLVED in similar cases, and is an unacceptable bias to take as positive evidence. ] (]) 02:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Overturn'''. I voted "oppose" to the move of ] to ] because this country's Portuguese-language name is not its ] exonym in the English-speaking world. Nonetheless, since Misplaced Pages is consensus-based, I would not be reluctant to accept a clear majority in favor of the move, such as the majorities evident in the city name moves ] → ] or ] → ]. However, the votes do not show majority support for the move and, since moves of country names are rare and contentious (the most recent such move — ] → ] at ] — also resulted in a move review), a move of this nature should be made only if consensus is clear and unambiguous.&nbsp;—] <small>] • ]</small> 06:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Overturn to no consensus or relist''' <small>(uninvolved)</small> Per Supervote. Yet another example of a NAC doing a contentious close, that did not indicate consensus, but rather POV of the closer themselves. ]&thinsp;] 06:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC) <small>(Clarified !vote to overturn to NC or relist) ]&thinsp;] 03:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
*'''Endorse''' I don't actually see any problem with the close, and on DRV I tend to yell BADNAC even when others don't. The closer is not an admin, but clearly has experience closing discussions, and while their final sentence isn't well worded, the rest of the close was clearly thought out. Those supporting also made a better case than those opposing, in my opinion: those supporting cite COMMONNAME, and those opposing don't really discuss how it's ''not'' the COMMONNAME but instead make a variety of differing arguments. No reason to overturn this one. ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 06:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I'd be fine with a relist. ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 07:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::{{ping|SportingFlyer}} Regarding {{green|Those supporting also made a better case than those opposing}}. This move has been on my mind lately, and perhaps this is a bit overthought and not exactly a factor for en.wiki guidelines, but given the history of the country and even the specific history about the name Timor-Leste, I've had a nagging uncomfortable feeling about the page being moved following a Move Request that was half devoted to the country's name in various wikis for languages mostly spoken in Indonesia which supposedly reflect {{green|the lingua franca of the region}}. Rather than being a good case, it seems really not a great look (albeit the outcome itself is not reflective of this look). ] (]) 09:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::That's not the only argument, though, and we're just looking to see what the COMMONNAME is. ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 04:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::I don't think I said it was the only argument, and I'm not sure that affects the point here. The close and the nom are the prominent parts of any RM, and are likely to be what is read whenever someone checks to see why a page was moved. ] (]) 09:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::The notion of singularity of ], “Use commonly recognizable names” is wrong. Both meet COMMONNAME. ] (]) 22:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' <small>(partially involved - I made a general comment but didn't vote)</small>. I think the close could have absolutely been worded better, but I don't see it as a supervote - to me, I read it as a judgement after the closer read the argument and I don't think that a closer needs to explicitly say "After reading this discussion I am satisfied...". The arguments opposing the move were weak and generally related to vague claims and cherry-picked sources, or pointing to frustration with the move request in general rather than actually why the page shouldn't be moved. In contrast, support votes provided evidence and cited policy reasons for the move, which makes a move a perfectly logical conclusion. It could have been relisted for sure, but I don't think it ''needed'' to be, and closing seems fine to me. ] (]) 06:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
*:You are picking at the wrong issue with being explicit, if the closer is meant to be "satisfied" they should be with the consensus and its support in policy; they are not meant to be satisfied or not that a particular argument meets a certain standard. Closing RMs is not a burden-of-evidence style judgement. ] (]) 07:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Relist'''. I think the discussion hadn't quite settled into a steady state. Plenty of new participants were still coming in, based on the number who joined shortly before the closure. After the closure there were further new interested parties and further discussion, of which a good portion was helpful commentary and not just, say, only the same people repeating the same points they already made. And of course this is on a backdrop of a long history of dispute over the same proposal. No single one of these factors inherently requires a relist, but in the overall circumstances I would allow the post-close suggestions to discuss more. ] (]) 07:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Overturn'''. This was a pure ], based not on the consensus of the discussion but on the closer's reading of the position. Such an argument should have been made as a !vote, not as a close. This should be changed either to no consensus or to relist, so that it can be re-closed with a rationale that is actually based on the content of the discussion rather than the closer's position on the underlying question. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 09:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Relist'''. This was a premature close and its rationale had supervote character. I am personally in favor of a page move and could be content with the outcome, but at that stage of the discussion, a relist would have been the most appropriate thing to do. –] (]) 10:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Overturn to no consensus or relist''' Agree that the close was premature and there was not a strong consensus (which is probably needed given the number of attempts to move this article in the past). As an aside, I also find it quite odd that Ngrams were not referred to at all in the discussion, as they would usually be a key source when considering whether a common name had changed or not. The would suggest that the move should not have taken place. ] ]] 16:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Relist''' - The closing statement is a statement of the closer's opinion, not a statement about the consensus of opinions of the participants. It is therefore a ]. There is no consensus, and relisting is better than just closing as No Consensus. ] (]) 20:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Do not overturn to no consensus''' <small>(partially involved)</small> – there are still arguments to be made from users in the post-close discussion, and I generally believe 7-day discussions should very rarely be closed as no consensus. Relists exist to find that consensus. I made my comments about whether I think it's a good close or not on the talk page, but I don't feel strongly one way or the other; I'm not going to comment here on whether this should be relisted or endorsed. <span style="background-color: black">] ] ]</span> 21:56, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Relist''' As in post move discussions, while the reasoning is flawed, the close was still reasonable. However, relisting for a broader participation is desirable. ] (]) 15:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Overturn to no consensus or relist'''. It was a vote by the "closer"; a statement of what he/she thought. There were about equal numbers of supporters and opposers, and both sides made good arguments. With such a contentious issue, an admin close is desirable. It would also help if the closer summed up the best arguments of both sides. It is possible that keeping the discussion open might have produced a consensus; new contributions were still coming in the night before it was closed.<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--] ]</span> 10:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


====] (closed)==== ====] (closed)====

Latest revision as of 03:47, 3 January 2025

< 2024 November Move review archives 2025 January >

2024 December

2024 Israeli invasion of Syria

2024 Israeli invasion of Syria (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

User closed the move request of 19 December, while it was still being actively discussed, with no reasons whatsoever given. User then on started a new move request a minute later on a different article which involved the original article as well. When others tried to inquire about the move closure on the user's talk page they made no attempt to communicate whatsoever. In turn, I believe that this is a BADNAC. Zinderboff (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Relist (involved). Bad NAC, unresponsive closer. With zero explanation offered for the close, we cannot even attempt to formulate arguments for or against whether it was an appropriate interpretation of consensus. I'm taking no position with regards to how it *should* have been closed here, but I will at least point out that relisting will get more visibility on a discussion that seemingly lacks many of the participants I'd expect to see given the subject matter area (though perhaps the pending ARBPIA5 has something to do with that). ⇒SWATJester 21:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Relist (uninvolved) per SUPERVOTE, BACNAC, no rationale, also no correspondence even though they have edited WP since being pinged. Not the first time they've had a questionable NAC. TiggerJay (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse (uninvolved) It is difficult to make the case that any other closer would decide differently to either moved or even no consensus when there are only 8 !votes in favor (including nom) and 11 !votes against. Kenneth Kho (talk) 08:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Actually 7 because the nom voted in addition, and 11 oppose, isn’t a huge spread, and with one less on each side for being non EC. TiggerJay (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Consensus is not about counting votes, but counting arguments, WP:NHC. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 12:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    That wasn’t the basis for my decision and !vote but rather just commentary on the numbers as presented by the other user. However, identifying non-ec users are material. TiggerJay (talk) 15:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Exactly.
  • Relist(uninvolved) also possible administrative action against the closer? Or at least a warning. Rc2barrington (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think a bad NAC merits administrative action, they just need to not do it again until they're familiar with the process and can give the level of responsiveness necessary. ⇒SWATJester 21:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Relist (uninvolved): close was done nearly 8 32 hours early and was not clear enough of a consensus to justify that. think I got the math right now? Skynxnex (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Timor-Leste

Timor-Leste (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

This discussion was not closed by an assessment of the discussion, but by a supervote: "I am satisfied that "Timor Leste" is now the dominant term". The close contained not only the individual analysis leading to this view, but also pointed towards commentary made at another close to bolster the argument. What the close does not have is any evaluation of the participants' discussion. There has been some post-close commentary about a potential relisting, but either way the move request should be re-closed with an assessment of consensus. CMD (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Overturn. Supervote and BADNAC. I read a strong “no consensus”. Non admins should not be closing contentious discussions. A closer beginning their rationale by citing their previous closes is a plain claim to being INVOLVED in similar cases, and is an unacceptable bias to take as positive evidence. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn. I voted "oppose" to the move of East Timor to Timor-Leste because this country's Portuguese-language name is not its WP:COMMONNAME exonym in the English-speaking world. Nonetheless, since Misplaced Pages is consensus-based, I would not be reluctant to accept a clear majority in favor of the move, such as the majorities evident in the city name moves Kiev → Kyiv or Odessa → Odesa. However, the votes do not show majority support for the move and, since moves of country names are rare and contentious (the most recent such move — Ivory Coast → Côte d'Ivoire at Talk:Ivory Coast#Requested move 27 June 2024 — also resulted in a move review), a move of this nature should be made only if consensus is clear and unambiguous. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus or relist (uninvolved) Per Supervote. Yet another example of a NAC doing a contentious close, that did not indicate consensus, but rather POV of the closer themselves. TiggerJay (talk) 06:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC) (Clarified !vote to overturn to NC or relist) TiggerJay (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse I don't actually see any problem with the close, and on DRV I tend to yell BADNAC even when others don't. The closer is not an admin, but clearly has experience closing discussions, and while their final sentence isn't well worded, the rest of the close was clearly thought out. Those supporting also made a better case than those opposing, in my opinion: those supporting cite COMMONNAME, and those opposing don't really discuss how it's not the COMMONNAME but instead make a variety of differing arguments. No reason to overturn this one. SportingFlyer T·C 06:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'd be fine with a relist. SportingFlyer T·C 07:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    @SportingFlyer: Regarding Those supporting also made a better case than those opposing. This move has been on my mind lately, and perhaps this is a bit overthought and not exactly a factor for en.wiki guidelines, but given the history of the country and even the specific history about the name Timor-Leste, I've had a nagging uncomfortable feeling about the page being moved following a Move Request that was half devoted to the country's name in various wikis for languages mostly spoken in Indonesia which supposedly reflect the lingua franca of the region. Rather than being a good case, it seems really not a great look (albeit the outcome itself is not reflective of this look). CMD (talk) 09:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    That's not the only argument, though, and we're just looking to see what the COMMONNAME is. SportingFlyer T·C 04:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think I said it was the only argument, and I'm not sure that affects the point here. The close and the nom are the prominent parts of any RM, and are likely to be what is read whenever someone checks to see why a page was moved. CMD (talk) 09:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    The notion of singularity of WP:COMMONNAME, “Use commonly recognizable names” is wrong. Both meet COMMONNAME. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse (partially involved - I made a general comment but didn't vote). I think the close could have absolutely been worded better, but I don't see it as a supervote - to me, I read it as a judgement after the closer read the argument and I don't think that a closer needs to explicitly say "After reading this discussion I am satisfied...". The arguments opposing the move were weak and generally related to vague claims and cherry-picked sources, or pointing to frustration with the move request in general rather than actually why the page shouldn't be moved. In contrast, support votes provided evidence and cited policy reasons for the move, which makes a move a perfectly logical conclusion. It could have been relisted for sure, but I don't think it needed to be, and closing seems fine to me. Turnagra (talk) 06:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    You are picking at the wrong issue with being explicit, if the closer is meant to be "satisfied" they should be with the consensus and its support in policy; they are not meant to be satisfied or not that a particular argument meets a certain standard. Closing RMs is not a burden-of-evidence style judgement. CMD (talk) 07:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Relist. I think the discussion hadn't quite settled into a steady state. Plenty of new participants were still coming in, based on the number who joined shortly before the closure. After the closure there were further new interested parties and further discussion, of which a good portion was helpful commentary and not just, say, only the same people repeating the same points they already made. And of course this is on a backdrop of a long history of dispute over the same proposal. No single one of these factors inherently requires a relist, but in the overall circumstances I would allow the post-close suggestions to discuss more. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn. This was a pure supervote, based not on the consensus of the discussion but on the closer's reading of the position. Such an argument should have been made as a !vote, not as a close. This should be changed either to no consensus or to relist, so that it can be re-closed with a rationale that is actually based on the content of the discussion rather than the closer's position on the underlying question. Kahastok talk 09:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Relist. This was a premature close and its rationale had supervote character. I am personally in favor of a page move and could be content with the outcome, but at that stage of the discussion, a relist would have been the most appropriate thing to do. –Austronesier (talk) 10:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus or relist Agree that the close was premature and there was not a strong consensus (which is probably needed given the number of attempts to move this article in the past). As an aside, I also find it quite odd that Ngrams were not referred to at all in the discussion, as they would usually be a key source when considering whether a common name had changed or not. The results would suggest that the move should not have taken place. Number 57 16:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Relist - The closing statement is a statement of the closer's opinion, not a statement about the consensus of opinions of the participants. It is therefore a supervote. There is no consensus, and relisting is better than just closing as No Consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Do not overturn to no consensus (partially involved) – there are still arguments to be made from users in the post-close discussion, and I generally believe 7-day discussions should very rarely be closed as no consensus. Relists exist to find that consensus. I made my comments about whether I think it's a good close or not on the talk page, but I don't feel strongly one way or the other; I'm not going to comment here on whether this should be relisted or endorsed. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:56, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Relist As in post move discussions, while the reasoning is flawed, the close was still reasonable. However, relisting for a broader participation is desirable. Kenneth Kho (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus or relist. It was a vote by the "closer"; a statement of what he/she thought. There were about equal numbers of supporters and opposers, and both sides made good arguments. With such a contentious issue, an admin close is desirable. It would also help if the closer summed up the best arguments of both sides. It is possible that keeping the discussion open might have produced a consensus; new contributions were still coming in the night before it was closed.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Murder of Zvi Kogan (closed)

  • Murder of Zvi Kogan – discussion relisted. The MRV resulted in a clear consensus that the close was inadequate: editors noted that some arguments in the RM were not fully addressed by the closer, and expressed concern that the closer was imposing their own interpretation of policy rather than neutrally evaluating the RM participants' analyses. However, while the MRV participants were in agreement that the close was deficient, participants were split on which outcome would be preferable: relisting the discussion or overturning it to "Killing of Zvi Kogan". Most participants expressed support for either or both of these options, but there was relatively little discussion about why one would be preferable to the other, making it difficult to gauge consensus for a specific result. Accordingly, with a consensus not to uphold the close but no consensus to overturn to a specific result, I feel it most appropriate to default to relisting the original discussion. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Murder of Zvi Kogan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Since there are suspects in custody, I don't think the close correctly assessed the interplay of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:DEATHS with WP:BLPCRIME as required by WP:RMCIDC. The closer said that they did not consider the five IP supporters per WP:PIA (Israel says the suspects worked for Iran). Even so, many supporters gave little to no explanation. Some of the arguments that did address BLPCRIME conflated murders where there are live suspects and ones where there are not while others rely too much on the official, non-judicial pronouncements. Given that most non-Israeli sources only use "murder" in the context of the charges or quotations from officials, it seems like we should be erring on the side of caution given the BLP concerns. This should either be overturned to move the page to Killing of Zvi Kogan per WP:DEATHS or relisted/restarted.  -- Patar knight - /contributions 01:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Relist or Overturn as No Consensus Overturn to Killing of Zvi Kogan or relist - I was not involved with the initial RM, but feel like this was hastily NAC by a new closer after they hastily closed another contentious RM. There is significant contention here with decent arguments on both sides. The closer did not addressed multiple suggestions for "Killing of...", add to that potential WP:PIA sensitivities/bias here -- as such, this is probably something they should have avoided with a ten foot pole. And while we don't exactly count !votes this way, it is interesting that all of the oppose come from 10+ year veteran editors, while most support for comes from much newer accounts or non-EC accounts (but not all). It is a bit concerning that all of their closures prior to this one were also brought to their attention as contentious on their talk page, which they have responded in curt, and borderline uncivil behavior. I would admonish @Feeglgeef to stick to SNOW closures for the time being. TiggerJay (talk) 01:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm going to take a break before I fully reply to this, but, to start, half of the things you say here are not true. Feeglgeef (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Feeglgeef -- I will agree that one thing I misrepresented was all prior closures, this was based on your move log, showing you only closed and moved 3 RMs, one was a large multi-page move, and two of the three had editors bring concerns to your talk page. Your actual NAC activity has a lot of closures that is not as easy to search because you actually perform very few few actual moves yourself. It seems you are closing discussions without the ability to actually perform them, and then handing them off to other editors to do the heavy listing, such as this 16 multi-page move, almost a full day ago, which you responded with "I don't have the permission necessary to do that" in reference to performing the move, and not even filing a report at RM/TR. But I do welcome you to comment on the other "half of the things" untrue things. TiggerJay (talk) 04:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Changing to Overturn to Killing of Zvi Kogan as per Adumbrativus. TiggerJay (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Relist or Overturn to no consensus This is a rare instance where I'd overturn just based on the closer's response to a clarification of their close on their talk page, which shows they were not necessarily acting as a neutral arbiter but instead interjected their own interpretation into the close. Granted this is a difficult move review to close - consensus was that COMMONNAME was murder, but those opposing clearly show that in this instance, we generally only call something a "murder" if there has been a conviction, which was correctly cited by those opposing. Weighing the arguments would lead me to a no consensus in spite of a larger numerical majority for the COMMONNAME, but as long as the result here is to vacate the close, I'm happy. SportingFlyer T·C 06:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn to Killing of Zvi Kogan. Participants' central dispute was about the circumstances when unqualified, Wiki-voice "murder" can be used, absent a conviction. While some circumstances exist, the baseline is that it's a judgmental and non-neutral term with significant NPOV implications. Misplaced Pages:Article titles#Neutrality in article titles. Participants brought forth sources which, taken together, were divided on the use of "murder" and other words. Without showing a significant majority of sources or general acceptance of the description "murder", many votes did not justify receiving full weight. I would conclude there was not a consensus to move to "Murder of". (Lastly, of course, no editors argued to keep "Death of", so there is no need for an overturn to revert all the way back.) Adumbrativus (talk) 06:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Relist - I concur with SportinFlyer that the closer's response to the appellant's question is not a defense of their close so much as a statement of the position of those who supported the move, indicating that the closer is not assessing consensus but stating a position. I am also troubled by two actions by the closer that do not reflect on the close so much as on their readiness to close discussions:
      • When Tiggerjay said that questions about their closures were met with curt and borderline uncivil responses, they replied that half of TJ's statement is not true, but that they will reply later. That reply is curt and borders on incivility.
      • They deleted the closed discussion of the close, so that editors interested in the history have to root through the page history rather than viewing either the talk page or an archive of the talk page. The talk page guidelines permit deletion of old talk page messages, while also stating that archival is the best practice. Retention and archival should be either required or very strongly encouraged for editors who will be closing any sort of discussions. A discussion is not completed if it can be challenged at Move Review, Deletion Review, or some other forum.
    • I share the concern that the closer may not be ready for contentious closes.
    • It seems better to relist this Requested Move than to close it as No Consensus. A admin should close it after the relist. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment - Five days have elapsed since the closer said that they would take a break before replying fully to this Move Review. Since a Move Review is open for seven days, they are ignoring administrator accountability, which also applies to non-admins performing administrative functions such as closing discussions. Is a warning in order? Is the closer now ready to provide a better-late-than-never statement?Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Overturn to Killing of Zvi Kogan - closer made reference to BLPCRIME but failed to acknowledge what consensus to ignore WP:NCDEATHS, an NPOV matter, existed. I personally don't see how a consensus to ignore it did, and hence why I support overturning. I'd also be satisfied with a relist, but this was just a bad close all around. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it.
Category: