This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Compassionate727 (talk | contribs) at 22:05, 1 May 2024 (→Multiple page move of David articles: better wording). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:05, 1 May 2024 by Compassionate727 (talk | contribs) (→Multiple page move of David articles: better wording)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| < 2024 April | Move review archives | 2024 June > |
|---|
2024 May
Multiple page move of David articles
- David III of Tao (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)
- David IV of Georgia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)
- David V of Georgia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)
- David VI of Georgia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)
- David VII of Georgia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)
- David VIII of Georgia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)
- David IX of Georgia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)
- David X of Kartli (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)
- David XI of Kartli (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)
- 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, (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 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 . // Timothy :: talk 04:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 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 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 Compassionate727 for recognizing their responsibility for
“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 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) - 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 21:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)