Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May

< 2024 April	Move review archives	2024 June >

2024 May edit

Multiple page move of David articles edit

Closer: User:Compassionate727

Non-admin close without consensus (or anything even close to a consensus).
Discussion at closer's TP User talk:Compassionate727#Closure of David III of Tao → David III

At first the discussion was closed as No Cosensus,[1] (24 April 2024)
After a protest from the pro-move side on 26 April 2024, the closer returned on 30 April 2024, reopened the closed discussion and switched the result to move [2] and performed the move.
Original participants were not notified the closer had reopened and changed the result of the discussion or given an opportunity to respond to the reopened discussion.
After the switch, they posted indicating they performed the move and stated the discussion was closed (irony) to further discussion, referred discussion to here.

Closing a discussion, then reopening it days later to change the result in inappropriate. They did this without notifying the participants and giving them a chance to participate in the new/reopened discussion. Then stating the matter is closed to further discussion is inappropriate after they reopened the discussion to change the result. See [3]. // Timothy :: talk 04:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Overturn and restore original page names. per WP:BADNAC, a non-admin closure is not appropriate for moves in which the outcome either is close or is likely to be controversial. The discussion showed the move did not have consensus. The way the discussion was closed as no consensus and then reopened and the result changed (without notifying the original participants so they could participate in the reopened discussion) is inappropriate. // Timothy :: talk 04:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (involved). Attempting to close controversial and highly divided RMs is precisely what WP:BADNAC instructs non-admins not to do, and this contentious RM certainly qualifies. I assume the closer in this case was trying to be helpful (even though they were made aware of BADNAC in an earlier close and still chose to do the same thing here), but a non-admin closing the same RM twice in two completely opposite ways is unhelpful and has the result of leaving no confidence whatsoever in the outcome. The closer seems to recognize this, suggesting the "flipping" was messy and likely to make participants unhappy, but they refused to consider resolving it through discussion, instead directing people straight to MR. The RM should be reopened so that it can be properly addressed by admin. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved). The discussion was never re-opened. The closer’s decision was simply changed after oversights were pointed out in their original close. What needs to be evaluated here is the final close, which found in favor of community consensus over local consensus based on how well arguments were based in policy. I applaud Compassionate727 for recognizing their responsibility for “evaluating [participants’] 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.” per WP:RMCIDC which stems from WP:CONSENSUS and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. In both the original and revised closing they referred to how “weighty” the arguments were, and how they evaluated that. This is an exemplary closing, actually, which has made my list of Great RM decisions. Bravo!!! Well done!!! —В²C ☎ 17:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welp, here we are again. I think I've already said enough about why I closed it the way I did, but I perhaps need to say something about my decision to revise my close. I made a mistake weighing the arguments the first time I closed this discussion; Born2cycle brought this concern to my attention on my talk page, as instructions at WP:MR stipulate he should do. I honestly did not want to substantially revise my close because of the drama it would cause, but the more I thought about it, the more obvious it was to me that I would have closed it the other way had I not made this mistake and that I needed to take responsibility for that. I therefore revised my close, which is not particularly unusual, even if the effects of doing so are not usually so dramatic; it was never my intention to "reopen" the discussion, as more participation would not have been helpful and was not wanted. I did consider merely vacating my close and leaving it to someone else, but people have been loathe to close these monarch RMs and they seem to end up here at move review regardless, so I concluded that simply vacating would merely be wasting another closer's time and that I should just bite the bullet on this. I regret the disruption I have caused, and if consensus here is that I made things worse with this course of action, I will learn from that. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved) per Born2cycle, I don't know why the David III wasn't moved, if there was consensus it was ambiguous it should become a DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. When the dust settles a bit it should be reconsidered. —В²C ☎ 23:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why it couldn't boldly be done now. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s clearly potentially controversial. — В²C ☎ 03:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Turning David III into a DAB page? Possibly, but that doesn't seem likely to me. No harm in waiting though. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
David III of Tao is apparently the primary topic for David III. Making David III a DAB when it should be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT (as it currently is) if not the title is controversial. — В²C ☎ 05:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguity alone is no reason for a dab page, of course, since one of the uses of the ambiguous title may be the primary topic. David III needs to be reconsidered with respect to whether it has a PT. — В²C ☎ 20:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the difference between these moves and say a no consensus AfD is that the moves were clearly done in consideration with our current policies and guidelines. A non-admin close here isn't clearly an issue, either, as non-admins can move pages, and wasn't a poor close. SportingFlyer T·C 05:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). The current close is a fair reading of the discussion, and it appropriately weighs the arguments based on their grounding in policy. Re: the changing of the original close, I believe everything was appropriate in that respect as well. The challenge of the first close was because of the policy interpretation used in the closure (specifically, B2C contested Compassionate's reading of WP:RECOGNIZABILITY), and did not attempt to relitigate the underlying reasons for or against the move. It's normal for closers to sometimes change their minds in response to this sort of feedback (otherwise, there'd be no point in holding any discussion before jumping to MRV); admittedly it's less common for closers to change their close directly rather than reopen the discussion, but Compassionate's comment above provides a sensible rationale for that choice. Finally, the closer's non-admin status is irrelevant: WP:RMNAC advises non-admins to be cautious when closing contentious RMs, but emphasizes that it is nevertheless permissible. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this case a single participant who disliked the original outcome of the RM directly lobbied the closer on their talk-page with arguments that no one else involved in the RM had a chance to discuss or respond to. Closing based on that was not just "less common" but bypassed how RMs are supposed to work.

Reopening the discussion based on such feedback would have been perfectly fine and consistent with our procedures... but unilaterally flipping the outcome based on a single participant’s talk-page lobbying (and without offering any opportunity for response or comment from anyone else) simply was not. Regardless of whether it ultimately concludes with retaining or moving, reopening seems necessary. ╠╣uw [talk] 17:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse < uninvolved > per above args; closure is reasonable and in line with the closing instructions. Not the first of these and might not be the last of 'em. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This close was simply unacceptable. As stated above "Reopening the discussion based on such feedback would have been perfectly fine and consistent with our procedures... but unilaterally flipping the outcome based on a single participant’s talk-page lobbying (and without offering any opportunity for response or comment from anyone else) simply was not." I'll note again the closer waited days after the close to change the result, after others had stopped watching because the discussion was closed (and probably are not aware of this review).

If this is sustained, what is the next level of appeal? Either way there needs to be a clear community consensus on is it is permissible to return to discussion you had closed, wait, then reopen it and change the outcome and how long they can wait before reopening and changing the outcome. I do not think it is, but if the community consensus is that a closer can do this, it should be clear. // Timothy :: talk 18:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on how this closes, I'm sure you can bring this up at the administrator's noticeboard, but I must note I don't really see the issue here. There was less than a week between the original close and the revised close, asking closers to self-review is a generally recommended part of the appeals process which implies that a closer can revisit their close within a reasonable timeframe, and as someone with absolutely no interest in the topic area, the updated close appears to have better applied the guideline. SportingFlyer T·C 06:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn largely per TimothyBlue. Changing the result of an already-closed discussion in this way, without the checks and balances of a centralised review location like this, and on the basis of the lobbying of one user is not something I can comfortably live with. This should not have been a NAC and, in my opinion, definitely shouldn't have been changed post-close in the manner in which it was. Daniel (talk) 04:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]