|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Closer initially closed the request as "no consensus." The main opposer complained, and the closer then moved the page. I did not see any solid reasoning given by the closer for going ahead and moving the article. Like the closer, I saw the discussion as "no consensus" as well, and would like a review of whether or not the second outcome of the close is valid and the change in the decision followed protocol. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 14:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
From the policy up-page:
Flyer22 Reborn initiates the review with neither! She is disregarding policy here - as she did in the move debate itself - and instead she appears to instead be fishing in the editorial pool for the result that she wants - without doing the necessary and important work of placing a valid argument as per the protocol that a move review is supposed to adhere to. Why is this approach even being entertained? It seems an abuse of the system to me. We need to be all about policy here - if a good outcome is to be reached - and the closer correctly stated in their decision that "The move was supported by good policy based arguments." This is very true, and that is why it is a great decision. As the review-initiator has failed to put forth rationale as to why the closer did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI policy, this is an improper review request, and it should be thrown out. Aliveness Cascade ( talk) 15:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello! I am the nominator of the move. There were three votes (including mine) for the move, and two against. As I was surprised by the initial close decision of "no consensus", and the closer had not initially given any reason for their decision, I raised the matter with the closer on their talk page,as per protocol. Happily they responded. I specifically asked the closer this question: given that WP:RMCI#Three_possible_outcomes, says "no consensus" is indicated when "equally strong arguments and appeals to Wikipedia policy and outside sources were found on both sides", can you state what arguments by the two opposers you found had "equal weight" to all the arguments, evidence, and logic presented in the request (and its defense) that enabled you to arrive at the conclusion of "no consensus"? The closer, Yashovardhan, responded by changing their decision, on their own initiative, to "MOVE". And they have my appreciation and commendation for that! I had asked the question for the very reason that I did not believe the initial decision reflected wikipedia policy. It is a question I pose again to those who would overturn the decision to MOVE, and restore a "no-consensus" closure. What argument/s of the two opposers do you find are equally strong to the plentiful, reasoned, and evidence-backed arguments I provided in the nomination, its defense, and the ongoing discussion about the move. By the way, Flyer22 Reborn (the opposer-in-chief) appears to have initiated this move review before waiting for a response to their own submission to the closer. @ Born2Cycle: @ TAnthony: Aliveness Cascade ( talk) 20:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I've been informed that it was wrong of me to ping move-supporters TAnthony and Born2Cycle into this review discussion, and not move-opposer @ Livelikemusic: and neutral-voter @ Old Naval Rooftops:. Sincere apologies to the latter for bothering you now. It is necessary in the interests of fairness and balance. This is a one-off to restore balance. Thank you. Aliveness Cascade ( talk) 09:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I am listing this here because there is still controversy over it at the closer's talk page. The original discussion was to move the article İznik pottery to non-diacritic form (unlike İznik, the article for the town). The non-admin closure of this RM was a WP:BADNAC by closer User:Born2cycle under criteria #2, owing to the large amount of discussion and 50/50 split numerically; and supposedly under criteria #1 according to User:In ictu oculi. After the close generated controversy, B2C offered to revert his closure at the request of an uninvolved editor. After no less than seven editors requesting him to revert on his talk page, at least two of them completely uninvolved ( User:Dicklyon and User:Omnedon), he closes the discussion. Was this an inappropriate close? Laurdecl talk 08:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Laurdecl The appropriate policy page is not
WP:BADNAC but
WP:RMNAC, which explicitly states the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is not sufficient reason to reverse a closureand leaves much more grey area than WP:BADNAC on what non-admins can do. In practice, NACs are much more common here than elsewhere on Wikipedia, so the language of BADNAC probably isn't the best to lean on in this case. I agree with Herostratus that it might not be advisable for someone with strong opinions in the RM field to do a NAC, but as I expressed below, I think the close is perfectly reasonable and don't see the perceived COI as a reason to overturn what would in other cases be a good close on policy grounds. TonyBallioni ( talk) 15:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Closer initially closed the request as "no consensus." The main opposer complained, and the closer then moved the page. I did not see any solid reasoning given by the closer for going ahead and moving the article. Like the closer, I saw the discussion as "no consensus" as well, and would like a review of whether or not the second outcome of the close is valid and the change in the decision followed protocol. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 14:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
From the policy up-page:
Flyer22 Reborn initiates the review with neither! She is disregarding policy here - as she did in the move debate itself - and instead she appears to instead be fishing in the editorial pool for the result that she wants - without doing the necessary and important work of placing a valid argument as per the protocol that a move review is supposed to adhere to. Why is this approach even being entertained? It seems an abuse of the system to me. We need to be all about policy here - if a good outcome is to be reached - and the closer correctly stated in their decision that "The move was supported by good policy based arguments." This is very true, and that is why it is a great decision. As the review-initiator has failed to put forth rationale as to why the closer did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI policy, this is an improper review request, and it should be thrown out. Aliveness Cascade ( talk) 15:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello! I am the nominator of the move. There were three votes (including mine) for the move, and two against. As I was surprised by the initial close decision of "no consensus", and the closer had not initially given any reason for their decision, I raised the matter with the closer on their talk page,as per protocol. Happily they responded. I specifically asked the closer this question: given that WP:RMCI#Three_possible_outcomes, says "no consensus" is indicated when "equally strong arguments and appeals to Wikipedia policy and outside sources were found on both sides", can you state what arguments by the two opposers you found had "equal weight" to all the arguments, evidence, and logic presented in the request (and its defense) that enabled you to arrive at the conclusion of "no consensus"? The closer, Yashovardhan, responded by changing their decision, on their own initiative, to "MOVE". And they have my appreciation and commendation for that! I had asked the question for the very reason that I did not believe the initial decision reflected wikipedia policy. It is a question I pose again to those who would overturn the decision to MOVE, and restore a "no-consensus" closure. What argument/s of the two opposers do you find are equally strong to the plentiful, reasoned, and evidence-backed arguments I provided in the nomination, its defense, and the ongoing discussion about the move. By the way, Flyer22 Reborn (the opposer-in-chief) appears to have initiated this move review before waiting for a response to their own submission to the closer. @ Born2Cycle: @ TAnthony: Aliveness Cascade ( talk) 20:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I've been informed that it was wrong of me to ping move-supporters TAnthony and Born2Cycle into this review discussion, and not move-opposer @ Livelikemusic: and neutral-voter @ Old Naval Rooftops:. Sincere apologies to the latter for bothering you now. It is necessary in the interests of fairness and balance. This is a one-off to restore balance. Thank you. Aliveness Cascade ( talk) 09:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I am listing this here because there is still controversy over it at the closer's talk page. The original discussion was to move the article İznik pottery to non-diacritic form (unlike İznik, the article for the town). The non-admin closure of this RM was a WP:BADNAC by closer User:Born2cycle under criteria #2, owing to the large amount of discussion and 50/50 split numerically; and supposedly under criteria #1 according to User:In ictu oculi. After the close generated controversy, B2C offered to revert his closure at the request of an uninvolved editor. After no less than seven editors requesting him to revert on his talk page, at least two of them completely uninvolved ( User:Dicklyon and User:Omnedon), he closes the discussion. Was this an inappropriate close? Laurdecl talk 08:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Laurdecl The appropriate policy page is not
WP:BADNAC but
WP:RMNAC, which explicitly states the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is not sufficient reason to reverse a closureand leaves much more grey area than WP:BADNAC on what non-admins can do. In practice, NACs are much more common here than elsewhere on Wikipedia, so the language of BADNAC probably isn't the best to lean on in this case. I agree with Herostratus that it might not be advisable for someone with strong opinions in the RM field to do a NAC, but as I expressed below, I think the close is perfectly reasonable and don't see the perceived COI as a reason to overturn what would in other cases be a good close on policy grounds. TonyBallioni ( talk) 15:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |