Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Latest comment: 7 days ago22 comments3 people in discussion
Hi. I am sill somewhat new to wikipedia don't have much experience with move requests, I am curious under what basis you were able to conclude that the move request on the "Israeli Invasion of Syria" talk page was resolved? Shaked13 (talk) 15:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Echoing this -- as I commented on the talk page this was a bad non-admin closure, as it does not even attempt to explain the reasoning for the closure. Andre, you are required to explain your reasoning when closing a discussion, especially so when it is a controversial close on a controversial topic that is being performed by a non-admin with little experience in closing discussions (and just a few hundred edits over the bare-minimum required to edit in this topic space). You failed to do so. As I mentioned on the talk page, I'm requesting you self-revert and explain your closure or allow a more experienced editor to do it for you. Additionally please refrain from further non-admin closures if you're not familiar with the process and requirements around them. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!02:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
collapsing side discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Editing other editor's talk pages goes against Wikipedia policy, no? WP:USERTALKSTOP If @Andre Farfan asks me to stop commenting on this here, I will. Otherwise you should have kept this discussion on your own talk page and pinged Andre Farfan. Or am I misunderstanding wikipedia policy again? TurboSuperA (talk) 08:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, you are once again misunderstanding our talk page policy (collapsing of off-topic comments is expressly permitted), and it's rapidly becoming disruptive. As you are not eligible to participate in the underlying move discussion, your participation in this discussion here is manifestly unhelpful, and is reaching the point of impeding communication with Andre Farfan. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!08:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Shaked13 isn't allowed to comment on the Talk page of the 2024 Israeli Invasion of Syria either, yet you don't seem to have a problem with that. Furthermore, it was Shaked13 who started this thread, not you, I don't think you should decide who can participate in this discussion. Thirdly, my responses do not preclude Andre Farfan from seeing or participating in this discussion.
If you wish to control the discussion you can start a topic on your own Talk page, or better yet, on the article talk page. Two places where I will not comment. TurboSuperA (talk) 09:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Shaked13 is not disrupting this conversation the way you are; when they violated the CTOPS procedure as you did, they got in trouble for it as you did. Whataboutisms do not help you here. You are disrupting a conversation that does not involve you. If you continue to be disruptive, I will be initiating a noticeboard discussion. Stop it. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!13:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
There's 7 votes that support the move and 11 votes opposing it. I agree that the vote count could have been included in the closing statement, but the outcome of the request discussion is clear. TurboSuperA (talk) 05:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's not how move discussions work. Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions. and Further, any move request that is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it. See WP:RMCIDC. I'd note that you are brand new to Wikipedia with less than 150 edits and an account that's only a few weeks old. Consider gaining more experience with our policies and guidelines before commenting incorrectly on their applicability to contested matters. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!07:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
The Support voters failed to argue their case, there was no consensus among RS to justify the move.
This part is pertinent: "any move request that is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it."TurboSuperA (talk) 07:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's not how closures work. If you're closing a discussion, you're expected to provide a reasoning for it at the time of discussion. If you're not prepared to do so, you cannot close the discussion. None of the pages you linked above have anything to do with our clear-cut policy on how closures are to be executed. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!08:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@TurboSuperA You seem to understand that any user is capable of arbitrarily deciding when the discussion should end (which would be a fascinating approach to decision-making if true). Besides you've clearly switched arguments so you might as well acknowledge that your 7 vs 11 argument was not sound (and perhaps indicates that you could use some review of the rules. You seem to have become in expert on this topic in the span of a few hours). Shaked13 (talk) 07:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I was wrong about the consensus. For the other argument, I am simply following what the discussion opening statement said and what SWATjester quoted.
Besides, my understanding of Wikipedia's rules shouldn't affect whether the outcome is correct or not.
When I argue for something to be included or removed, I am happy to provide all the WP:RS I can find and give them to anyone who'd listen. So far there hasn't been much of that, on the article Tall page or here.
You seem to understand that any perceived impropriety re: Wikipedia policy is enough to justify the outcome you desire. Or am I misunderstanding your goal here?
If he was unprepared to close the discussion properly, he should not have closed it in the first place. And your presence here is not helpful and unnecessary. The fact that I'm having this discussion instead of reverting the closure myself is giving them that chance. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!08:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
"As per usual Wikipedia policy, remember that results are determined by consensus of reliable sources, not by votes or numbers. Please provide reliable sources to support your arguments." (from the first post in the move request discussion) Shaked13 (talk) 06:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Actually the Support voters were the only ones making WP:RS arguments; but in any event you've just acknowledge why closing the discussion without providing a rationale for the closure was wrong and out-of-process. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!07:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agreed with you that the closing statement was improper, but I do agree with the outcome, as the Support voters failed to show consensus among WP:RS to justify the move.
Nobody's asking them to change the outcome, and it's totally irrelevant whether you agree with the outcome -- you weren't eligible to participate in the discussion in the first place. But as a non-admin closure conducted out of process, with no explanation as to the reasoning, we cannot say the outcome was correct. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!07:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
"you weren't eligible to participate in the discussion in the first place."
This is true and after I was informed of the policy I did not attempt to participate in the discussion, however no such restriction exists on this User Talk page. I am new to wikipedia so this is all part of my learning process. Wikipedia has a lot of policies, suggestions and rules, seeing them applied is the best way to learn about them. TurboSuperA (talk) 08:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Then I'd highly advise listening more, and learning from those with more policy experience, before seeking to insert your opinion. This thread's request was directed at Andre Farfan, not you. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!08:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
