- Killing of George Floyd (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)
No policy reason offered for the procedural close. While I understand another move discussion was closed, that closure does not close the door to another move. The discussion should be allowed to continue. Casprings (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That is incorrect. I did give a policy reason, which was a move request submitted just a few hours after I had already closed the latest one was disruptive to the stability of the article. I also elaborated that while consensus can change, it simply does not change that rapidly. This move request, therefore, came across as tendentious, so as an uninvolved admin, I chose to take appropriate action and speedy close the request. El_C 19:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That is correct, but it was offered after his first response. My apologies on moving to open this too before I saw the second response. That said, the page does not have multiple move requests open. While I agree with the first move, this is a better title and I think editors will agree with me if the discussion is allowed to continue. We simply do not know if the title is preferred because the discussion has not occurred. Having this on the talk page is not a disruption, in my opinion. Having multiple requests open at once is a disruption. That is why I waited until the closure to open the current request. Casprings (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- El C - maybe let some other admins step in and close? You don't have to keep making the rules here. How many RMs have you now closed related to the topic? ɱ (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- My decision as an uninvolved admin is that the overwhelming influx of move requests is disruptive to the stability of these pages. I have noted my actions at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#George_Floyd_protests and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Technical_move_request:_Death_of_George_Floyd_->_Killing_of_George_Floyd, so I have been accountable and upfront about my actions from the outset. El_C 20:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I just looked at the archives. Unless I missed something, this is the second move request? How is that overwhelming?Casprings (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "Topic," "pages." Please review the links submitted by me directly above. As mentioned here, two uninvolved admins (Cullen and Drmies) have supported my prior actions (see also this discussion). El_C 20:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop referring to them as 'uninvolved' while they both weighed in on the lawless move of the Columbus protest article, Drmies moving it without waiting for the RM to close and canvassing Cullen's opinion afterward. ɱ (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The first link provides support for a moratorium on George Floyd protests. I haven't looked to see how many RMs are there, but I also don't see the relevance. The second is a technical move request? Again, not seeing the relevance. Once again, I do not understand how opening another move request on a name that has never been suggested is disruptive.Casprings (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You had almost full week to argue for Murder. Waiting for the discussion to close and then immediately opening a new move request is disruptive, I'm sorry to say. El_C 20:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think Drmies canvassed Cullen's opinion and I consider that accusation to be an aspersion. El_C 20:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per El_C's words above. --letcreate123 (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Except one or two support !votes that offered no policy-based justification whatsoever and considering the very strong argument (imho) of WP:BLPCRIME, I see (even as someone who was involved in the discussion) no way this discussion could have reasonably resulted in a consensus to move and would most likely have resulted in a WP:SNOW close quickly afterwards anyway. Regards SoWhy 06:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per the clear policy reason cited by most, and endorse speedy close “too soon after the Requested move 27 May 2020 consensus”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn I do not agree with a premature closure based on one administrator's desire to shut down discussion, too much participation and or administrator frustration should not be a reason to close. I would submit that El C was too close because of their closure of the previous page move discussion per WP:INVOLVED, and should have recused. Per my previous rationale I do not agree with Murder or Killing in the title. BLP issues exist regarding either title, it is not relevant what separate autopsies have stated. I think we have a format for titles and that format should be followed. Death of Eric Garner, Death of Breonna Taylor, Death of JonBenét Ramsey. (but that is a discussion I would have continued had the discussion about this new page not been ended prematurely). Lightburst (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I submit that I was and remain an uninvolved admin. I also submit that going from one RM to another is disruptive to the stability of the page and is tendentious. Yes, the article is subject to BLP considerations, including the BLP DS (I'm the one who covered it accordingly, incidentally). Had I deemed the title change from Death to Killing a BLP violation, I naturally would have not moved it on those grounds alone. There was ample time to discuss that, at any rate, but once the RM was closed, that was it as far as that goes. El_C 18:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Just one comment here. A move discussion, by its nature, tends to be a binary choice. It is either option A or option B, as proposed by the OP. Of course, this is sometimes not the case. However, in general, that is the case. That said, I did not participate in the first move discussion and noticed and read through it after I started to follow the page and saw it moved. In reading through it, I noted some of the commenters suggested the term "murder." To me, that makes a lot more sense. The title more conforms with Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED and what the WP:RS say about the event. Moreover, the title is aligned with Murder of Seth Rich, Murder of Tupac Shakur, and Murder of XXXTentacion. I figured that if consensus moved once towards a view that Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED, the actual consensus might be further in that direction.
- I am just missing what is disruptive about finding out? I am not edit warring. I am taking part in a discussion on the talk page in a respectful way. Editors and choose to take part, or they can want not to. However, given the previous discussion, this discussion seemed perfectly logical.
- Also, I don't see how WP:INVOLVED doesn't come into play. Your decisions on George Floyd protests clearly effected your choice here. However, this is another situation and another editor with a different motivation.
- In sum, I think this should be reopened, and another editor should close it. Casprings (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close All of these articles have been subject to multiple move requests, often (as in this case) with a new one being opened almost immediately after the previous, and sometimes multiple at the same time. At this article, there have been three move proposals within 24 hours. Casprings filed this new request six hours after the previous one had been closed. The response to their suggestion was overwhelmingly opposed (12 to 3). And no wonder: they were proposing to move the title to “murder of…” when no murder has been established. I endorse the close, and I endorse the moratorium on move discussions. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the guessed eventual outcome to a move request closed this quickly is a valid argument. Many RFC, Move request, etc start out with large votes in one direction just to slowly gain consensus the other direction. Moreover, this is not the place to argue if the move was a valid suggestion. That place would be in a move request discussion.Casprings (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
