| Revision as of 21:19, 1 May 2024 editCompassionate727 (talk | contribs)Edit filter helpers, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers32,145 edits Comment← Previous edit |
Revision as of 22:05, 1 May 2024 edit undoCompassionate727 (talk | contribs)Edit filter helpers, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers32,145 editsm →Multiple page move of David articles: better wordingNext edit → |
| Line 32: |
Line 32: |
|
*'''Overturn''' (involved). Attempting to close controversial and highly divided RMs is precisely what ] instructs non-admins not to do, and this contentious RM certainly qualifies. I ] the closer in this case was trying to be helpful (even though they were made aware of BADNAC in an ] 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. ] <span style="font-size:smaller"><nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></span> 10:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
*'''Overturn''' (involved). Attempting to close controversial and highly divided RMs is precisely what ] instructs non-admins not to do, and this contentious RM certainly qualifies. I ] the closer in this case was trying to be helpful (even though they were made aware of BADNAC in an ] 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. ] <span style="font-size:smaller"><nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></span> 10:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
*'''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 {{U|Compassionate727}} for recognizing their responsibility for {{tq|“evaluating arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Misplaced Pages community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions.”}} per ] which stems from ] and ]. 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 ]. Bravo!!! Well done!!! —] ] 17:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
*'''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 {{U|Compassionate727}} for recognizing their responsibility for {{tq|“evaluating arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Misplaced Pages community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions.”}} per ] which stems from ] and ]. 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 ]. Bravo!!! Well done!!! —] ] 17:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
*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; {{u|Born2cycle}} brought this concern to my attention on my talk page, as instructions at ] 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 uncommon, 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. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 21:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
*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; {{u|Born2cycle}} brought this concern to my attention on my talk page, as instructions at ] 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. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 21:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |