277:. 2) Your argument when first closing the discussion was "a messy title is better than a neat, but possibly inaccurate one." You generally were making the argument that we should have a broad title to cover all possible dates. Other editors were arguing that the financial crisis continued 2007-present. They were saying that you could make a positive statement that the financial crisis lasted five years. You argued that we could not make a negative statement that crisis had ended. Those are two different arguments. As an admin, your job is to implement the consensus not supply your own argument. By the way, we argued that the "financial crisis" had ended but recessionary effects continued. Users against the move seem to be confused about the meaning of "financial crisis" (bank failures, equity market crashes) versus a general decline or lag in output. This point was crucial to the argument, but you don't seem to have understood it and countered "leave that to academia!" The definition of a "financial crisis" is germane, but you supplied your own arguments that it wasn't. Once again, you were acting as a discussant not as an impartial admin. 3)You replied to me on your talk page, but did not participate in a discussion. You gave me one non sequitur response then told me to stop posting on your talk page.
183:) 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
84:. The consensus here is that a "no consensus" close was within admin discretion. For those who are suggesting that the closing admin should have moved to "Financial crisis of 2007-2008", closers can only make their decisions based on the comments that are made in the RM and that title and the suggestion of reverting back to the first non-stub version was never mentioned. Similarly, although there is a decent amount of support for that title here, I don't feel it is within MRV's scope to close as "overturn and move to X" when X was never mentioned in the original RM. No prejudice against a new RM. –
306:
Knowledge. I explained that in my response to you on my talk page (which, I agree, was testy but you were accusing me of not acting in good faith in a situation where I could, and still cannot, see a single bad faith reason for my reopening the move request. Regardless, I was wrong to be abrupt and I apologize for that.) I also did state the current title is less than perfect but I also added that the proposed title appeared to be inaccurate (based on the discussion). That only means that we should continue to look for a better title. --
326:) was arguing that continued recessions meant that the "financial crisis" was ongoing. Fred did not have sources supporting this assertion (His sources only claim that economies are lagging, not that they are in a financial crisis). Fred's claims are OR, and other users provided sources explaining why his OR claim that a recession meant continued financial crisis did not match established sources. Users provided citations for the definition
237:
evaluated the arguments presented on the talk page and based my close on various arguments presented that the crisis spans more than 2008. It is incorrect to say that this was not an argument in the move discussion. It was clearly raised as an argument by at least two editors and supported by at least one other editor. I did respond to
Bkwillwm on my talk page, however that's not really an issue for the move review. --
498:). I am very aware that "consensus" is not guaranteed by winning a vote, but, IMO, you have to have a very strong argument for not interpreting an 83% vote as a consensus (e.g. that many of the majority votes were simply dittos or did not express an argument while the minority actually made arguments). I have not heard a good reason why this vote (and accompanying arguments) do not reflect a consensus.--
213:: 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 Knowledge 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
516:" looks defendable to me. I suggest a new RM discussion, where the only two options are "Global financial crisis of 2008" and the original "Financial crisis of 2007-2008". Note that while polls are evil, multi-option polling is especially evil. I think it is clear that today's title "2007–2012 global financial crisis" is not supported by a consensus. --
333:"That only means that we should continue to look for a better title." Exactly. Couldn't agree more. The best way for us to do this would be to continue the discussion you closed. You could have/should have raised any concerns you had about alternative titles before closing it. Locking in the current title despite the consensus against it was a bad move.--
187:. 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.
286:
Also, just wanted to add that when you first closed the discussion you stated "I agree that there is a general consensus that the current title is less than perfect." So you clearly understood the consensus and ignored it. You supplied your own rationale for not making the move, which is not part of
236:
Bkwillwm makes several incorrect statements in his/her comment above. (1) I asked editors to summarize their arguments for "their preferred title". All titles, including the current one, are included in this statement (though, to be honest, I only meant the proposed and current titles. (2) I merely
190:
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
191:
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
424:
I think it is fairly obvious that the title discussion will continue. However, I see no need to rush. If fact, I predict that in five years the title will be something not yet considered, that the content will be entirely rewritten, and that very few of the current references will not have been
305:
means that we don't make our own interpretations because that's what academia and peer review is supposed to do. My request to keep the economics out of the discussion was merely to point out that using various economic metrics to figure out when the crisis started or ended is not the business of
250:
Frankly, the claim of non-neutrality is a bit baffling. Why exactly, if the existing title were my preferred one, would I reopen the discussion when I could simply restate my reasons and keep the discussion closed at that very title? There must be some convoluted thinking behind this claim but I
605:
I also prefer starting in 2007 but I think ending in 2012 is inappropriate since a) no one thinks it will end this year and b) there are sources that have it ending in 2009. If we accept the sources that have it continuing, as you suggest, we still have no sources for it ending in 2012.
464:. There certainly was no consensus to adopt the proposed title. Nor was there clear consensus on any one of the new proposals that came out of the discussion (though consensus seemed close). The title has been unstable for a long time for both topical and stylistic reasons.
549:" looks defendable, so does a "no consensus" close, and it is within admin discretion to have chosen between the two. That said, the multi-option discussion was a bit confusing (despite some valiant efforts), and a better focused new RM discussion may be fruitful. --
418:
may very well be less satisfying to more editors than the current title. However, I still think it should be considered the default due to the benefits of having a fair default position that cannot be gamed, except that it encourages editors to write new non-stub
582:, having a major impact on growth and employment prospects and confidence. Clearly, the global economy remains vulnerable, with a negative impact on the everyday lives of people all over the world, affecting jobs, trade, development, and the environment."
530:
Jojalozzo and SmokeyJoe, you haven't provided any arguments backing your position. Saying it "looks defendable" doesn't really cut it. Do you at least see the irony in voting to back an admin's decision that he could ignore votes when determining
272:
1) Sorry if I misunderstand you, but my point regarding your "reopening" of the discussion was that no one supported the current title in the re-opened discussion, yet you still went with the current title. This is easily confirmed by looking
648:) that there is consensus that the current title should be changed. Endorse change to "Financial crisis of 2007-2008" per talk page comments, or by the argument 'no-consensus, revert title to first non-stub title'.
584:
G20 Leaders
Declaration, Los Cabos, Mexico, June 19, 2012. I also don't understand the reluctance to date the crisis from 2007 when there is good authority for a discrete starting point on August 7, 2007,
154:
622:
That's a good example of Fred's OR that continued economic problems and discussion of financial issues justify a dating of the financial crisis that does match sources.--
330:. You wonder why we think you are not impartial? You are accusing us of OR despite our having provided sources while you side with Fred who has clearly made OR claims.
192:
160:
443:
Apply commonsense with regard to hyphenation described by policy/guidelines. Recommend that anyone unhappy with this title initiate a fresh RM discussion. --
495:
327:
274:
184:
124:
409:
I believe that this default position has the best advantage in in terms of calming upset editors, which is the best step in promoting calm discussion.
394:(the first non-stub version, which I believe Fred Bauder chose, 19:11, 17 September 2008). This is according to a generalised reading of WP:RETAIN:
322:
Regarding OR issues, please review the talk page. Discussion of the definition of "financial crisis" only arose because the primary anti-move user (
51:
37:
120:
76:
405:“When no has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default”.
46:
578:"3. Since we last met, the global recovery has continued to face a number of challenges. Financial market tensions are high. External,
546:
513:
586:
468:
suggests we "default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub" (that would be
390:
As I noted there, I believe that as a consequence of the formal “no consensus” conclusion, the title should be moved back to
382:
378:
222:
470:
415:
391:
357:
172:
42:
545:
I have looked again and I do not see that the closer ignored anything. Maybe you'd like more explanation. While "
21:
646:
301:
Bkwillwm, the definition of a financial crisis is germane only to the extent that reliable sources use it.
653:
465:
576:
I realize this is a difficult area, however there is expert opinion regarding this matter available, see
668:
593:
312:
257:
243:
104:
17:
494:
Ten of the users supported a title change to "Global financial crisis of 2008" and only two opposed (
657:
631:
617:
612:
596:
558:
554:
540:
525:
521:
507:
485:
480:
452:
448:
434:
430:
342:
317:
296:
262:
226:
204:
93:
627:
536:
503:
372:
338:
292:
200:
649:
89:
425:
replaced. In the mean time, the lede section should continue to explain the ambiguities. --
590:
398:
323:
307:
252:
238:
180:
577:
607:
550:
517:
475:
444:
426:
623:
532:
499:
368:
334:
288:
218:
196:
302:
85:
360:
as the first non-stub version title, until there is a consensus for another name
383:
Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#managing_repeated_.22no_consensus.22_decisions
496:
Talk:2007–2012_global_financial_crisis#Four-way_RfC_summary_table
367:
I became aware of this move discussion through dialogue with
167:
147:
139:
131:
645:
It's clear from comments on the talk page (see here
580:
fiscal and financial imbalances are still prevalent
587:"Three myths that sustain the economic crisis"
8:
103:The following is an archived debate of the
69:
643:Change to "Financial crisis of 2007-2008"
287:your authority when acting as an admin.--
7:
671:of the page listed in the heading.
356:Endorse (“no consensus”). Rename
28:
512:A close of "Consensus to move to
121:2007–2012 global financial crisis
77:2007–2012 global financial crisis
667:The above is an archive of the
547:Global financial crisis of 2008
514:Global financial crisis of 2008
94:10:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
1:
474:) and go back to work on it.
471:Financial crisis of 2007-2008
416:Financial crisis of 2007-2008
392:Financial crisis of 2007-2008
358:Financial crisis of 2007-2008
30:
248:20:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
658:03:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
632:02:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
618:19:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
597:18:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
559:00:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
541:02:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
526:06:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
508:05:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
486:15:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
453:00:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
435:01:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
343:22:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
318:21:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
297:21:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
263:20:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
227:18:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
205:16:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
694:
674:Please do not modify it.
110:Please do not modify it.
185:summarize our arguments
408:
395:
234:Closing admin comment
18:Knowledge:Move review
43:Move review archives
107:of the page above.
681:
680:
316:
265:
261:
247:
60:
59:
685:
676:
615:
610:
591:User:Fred Bauder
483:
478:
324:User:Fred Bauder
310:
255:
251:don't get it. --
249:
241:
215:financial crisis
181:User:RegentsPark
170:
150:
142:
134:
112:
82:closure endorsed
70:
56:
36:
31:
693:
692:
688:
687:
686:
684:
683:
682:
672:
613:
608:
481:
476:
466:WP:TITLECHANGES
225:
166:
165:
159:
153:
146:
145:
138:
137:
130:
129:
108:
68:
61:
54:
34:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
691:
689:
679:
678:
663:
662:
661:
660:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
600:
599:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
489:
488:
458:
457:
456:
455:
438:
437:
421:
420:
411:
410:
387:
386:
364:
363:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
331:
281:
280:
279:
278:
267:
266:
230:
229:
221:
177:
176:
163:
157:
151:
143:
135:
127:
115:
114:
99:
98:
97:
96:
67:
65:2012 August 19
62:
58:
57:
52:2012 August 26
49:
40:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
690:
677:
675:
670:
665:
664:
659:
655:
651:
647:
644:
641:
640:
633:
629:
625:
621:
620:
619:
616:
611:
604:
603:
602:
601:
598:
595:
592:
588:
583:
581:
575:
574:Endorse close
572:
571:
560:
556:
552:
548:
544:
543:
542:
538:
534:
529:
528:
527:
523:
519:
515:
511:
510:
509:
505:
501:
497:
493:
492:
491:
490:
487:
484:
479:
473:
472:
467:
463:
462:Endorse close
460:
459:
454:
450:
446:
442:
441:
440:
439:
436:
432:
428:
423:
422:
417:
413:
412:
407:
406:
402:
400:
393:
389:
388:
384:
380:
377:
374:
370:
366:
365:
361:
359:
354:
353:
344:
340:
336:
332:
329:
325:
321:
320:
319:
314:
309:
304:
300:
299:
298:
294:
290:
285:
284:
283:
282:
276:
271:
270:
269:
268:
264:
259:
254:
245:
240:
235:
232:
231:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
209:
208:
207:
206:
202:
198:
194:
188:
186:
182:
174:
169:
162:
156:
149:
141:
133:
126:
122:
119:
118:
117:
116:
113:
111:
106:
101:
100:
95:
91:
87:
83:
79:
78:
74:
73:
72:
71:
66:
63:
53:
50:
48:
44:
41:
39:
33:
32:
23:
19:
673:
666:
642:
579:
573:
531:consensus?--
469:
461:
404:
403:
396:
375:
355:
233:
214:
210:
189:
178:
109:
102:
81:
75:
64:
38:2012 July 23
669:move review
308:regentspark
253:regentspark
239:regentspark
179:The admin (
105:move review
47:2012 August
414:The title
551:SmokeyJoe
518:SmokeyJoe
445:SmokeyJoe
427:SmokeyJoe
419:articles.
399:WP:RETAIN
219:→Yaniv256
217:article.
624:Bkwillwm
533:Bkwillwm
500:Bkwillwm
379:contribs
369:Yaniv256
335:Bkwillwm
289:Bkwillwm
223:contribs
197:Bkwillwm
20: |
313:comment
258:comment
244:comment
211:Comment
161:archive
140:history
86:Jenks24
397:(from
614:lozzo
482:lozzo
381:) at
303:WP:OR
168:watch
155:links
55:: -->
16:<
654:talk
628:talk
609:Joja
594:Talk
555:talk
537:talk
522:talk
504:talk
477:Joja
449:talk
431:talk
373:talk
339:talk
328:here
293:talk
275:here
201:talk
148:logs
132:edit
125:talk
90:talk
35:<
193:ANI
171:) (
22:Log
656:)
650:LK
630:)
589:.
557:)
539:)
524:)
506:)
451:)
433:)
401:)
341:)
295:)
203:)
195:--
173:RM
92:)
80:–
45::
652:(
626:(
553:(
535:(
520:(
502:(
447:(
429:(
385:.
376:·
371:(
362:.
337:(
315:)
311:(
291:(
260:)
256:(
246:)
242:(
199:(
175:)
164:|
158:|
152:|
144:|
136:|
128:|
123:(
88:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.