Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Move review/Archive 2012

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Why do we need to consider a RM review proposal?

Wikipedia:Requested moves has no formal review process unlike most other xfd processes. As a result, there is no way to have the broader community join a discussion to see if the decision really was proper. I expect that the reviews will have three main results; to endorse the action, to relist for additional input or to overturn the close. But like anything, the actions are not limited to those three since one size does not fit all. Feel free to comment on the proposal and expand it. At some point I would hope that a greatly improved version of this proposal will gain community consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Just today there was a move where this facility would have been needed. If not anything else it will bring anything controversial or extremly obscure to the attention of more eyes. Thanks for starting this. Agathoclea (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Good idea. I guess the idea of using DRV never gained any traction, which is fine I suppose. I don't much like the idea of proliferating noticeboards and process, but I think that it's high time for some sort of discussion venue about the RM process.
— V = IR (Talk ‱ Contribs) 03:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Yea, no traction at DRV. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Will formal RM review simply extend the RM process for most controversial cases?

Careful. Right now, without a formal RM review mechanism in place, RM closes, for better or for worse, usually provide closure to the issue. In some cases one can appeal to the closer and sometimes things do get re-evaluated and even reversed. I'm concerned that that will no longer be the case with this new mechanism in place, which will simply extend the RM process for most controversial cases. I mean, slam dunks are slam dunks, but all the rest are likely to be submitted to review by the losing side. How to prevent that from happening? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we've got that covered. It's already fairly well established that DRV is not AFD round 2, and we've already talked about the exact same idea for this, below.
— V = IR (Talk ‱ Contribs) 21:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't see what will keep the losing side from challenging in every RM discussion that is not a slam dunk, because if it's not a slam dunk, by definition it could have gone either way. What is to keep them from all being submitted for review? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I see it functioning the same way as DRV. To paraphrase from DRV, "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly". If there is an RM that could have been closed either way, i.e. within reasonable admin discretion, then the result should not be overturned; you should only vote for an overturn if you can explain why the closure was unambiguously incorrect. To answer your final question, at first I think we just have to trust the common sense of those involved (and it's worth noting that very few XfDs go to DRV). If we start and the process is abused by many users, then yes, we will have to rethink it. But if it's just one or two users who bring every RM that goes against them, I think it would be relatively straightforward to just topic ban them from the process. Jenks24 (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Yea, this is fairly well trodden ground.
— V = IR (Talk ‱ Contribs) 00:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
My limited experience with AfD suggests it might not be a good analogy for this. In general, AfDs seem far less controversial and less complicated. Of course there are exceptions; I'm just saying in general. I think this is because our rules about notability are much clearer than are our rules about deciding titles. In short, I think it's possible to reasonably argue poor interpretation by the closer in most RM decisions, but not in most AfDs. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
"AfDs seem far less controversial and less complicated." lol! Sorry, but even with the "limited experience" preface that statement is just... wow. Some good percentage of AFD's are relatively non-controversial, if only because AFD is probably our most well developed process now. That being said, controversial RM's come nowhere close to controversial AFD's.
— V = IR (Talk ‱ Contribs) 02:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Do you know of any AfD disputes that lasted anywhere near as long as 8 years? I can. In fact, I can think of two RM disputes that lasted over five years (yogurt and Sega Genesis), and that's not even including the entire category of U.S. cities.

Anyway, hopefully I'm wrong. It happened once before (and I was wrong about that).

We'll see. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, well... that's a different metric, and one that can't be equally applied to AFD except through stretching the definitions. There are articles that have been repeatedly nominated for deletion since before AFD existed (it used to be "Votes for deletion"), but the AFD process itself is time limited by definition, where the RM procedure isn't (more or less). But here's the thing, we can find outliers to any process in use on Wikipedia, and most of them have some sort of appeals procedure (DRV for XFD's being the most obvious). RM's currently don't. I don't see how adding one could be a bad thing, in and of itself (the potential for increased "drama" is something to keep in mind, but the lack of a procedure creates it's own drama as well).
— V = IR (Talk ‱ Contribs) 04:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Where?

I think that one of the first things to address is where this process should take place. Personally, I think that a model where the ongoing reviews are listed on a central page, but the discussions themselves occur on the article talk page, would be best. That's the way that RM's themselves work, after all. However, I could see a case for using the Wikipedia space with subpages, as other xfd processes do, being made.
— V = IR (Talk ‱ Contribs) 03:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

A question I have been asking myself. I'm leaning against the article talk page since that draws a crowd that may be biased in the status quo since they are mostly interested in that article. So keeping the discussion on neutral ground seems like the smarter option. This is especially true when there are issues of primary topic. When it is an issue with the spelling, the involved editors could have the best ideas, but then again, there can be other biases in play. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
What about Talk:Blackmark (novel)? Look at supporters and opposers like me. Who was more biased? --George Ho (talk) 08:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Bias can cut both ways. I did not read that entire discussion, but whatever the outcome, how a closer would view the arguments is not yet decided. I suspect if this process was in place that close could likely wind up here. One thing I dislike on the dab page is that the likely primary use is not directly listed. Instead all we have is the wictionary link. How would something like that affect a review process? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I doubt that a central discussion venue would get much traffic (although I could be wrong), so a model like that used by CSD or one of the noticeboards, where the page lists multiple discussions under section headings, would probably be best. We could always change it to the AFD model, using sup-pages, if needed.
— V = IR (Talk ‱ Contribs) 16:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer the discussions not take place on the article's talk page. I think actually using a Wikipedia space subpage will make it clearer that this is not RM-take-2 and we are only analysing the closure, not rehashing the discussion. Jenks24 (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
👍 Like --Born2cycle (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Some big picture considerations

I personally think an RM Review Process would be a good thing for WP, but it must be carefully crafted to ensure it’s not just another place for editors to rant about move decisions they don’t like. And, equally so, I don’t think it should be a place where admins opposing a move decision pile on because they would have done it differently. Since there are multiple possible outcomes and multiple ways an RM can proceed in any RM discussion, the RM Review Process has to be designed to account for all of them when someone takes an RM decision to review. Here’s a list of a few scenarios that I’ve seen as an RM closer.

  • Easy reviews and RM closures
    • Uncontested RMs or RMs where 1 or 2 additional editors agree with the nominator
    • RMs where there is overwhelming support of or opposition to the nominations (~3:1)
  • Difficult reviews and RM closures
    • Contested RMs where both support for and opposition to is about even (regardless of policy/guideline arguments)
    • Contested RMs where conflicting policy/guideline arguments are made by both sides (i.e. both sides are right from a policy guideline perspective)
    • Contested RMs where the requested new title morphs into alternatives (sometimes extremely unclear as to what the real alternative is) during the discussions and much of the early discussion is moot if the target move title has really changed.
    • Contested RMs where the substance of the article is about a traditional WP battleground topic—cultural, political, social, etc. These RMs can involve irrational and biased interpretations of policy, sources, etc.
    • Contested RMs based on Commonname where both sides interpret Google, Ngram and other sources completely differently and discount the other sides interpretations.
    • Contested RMs where one side or the other believes (not necessarily validated) there are sockpuppets or canvassing going on. In other words, regardless of motivation or argument, the other side’s position should be ignored.
    • Contested RMs where un-civil dialog dominates the discussion and contested RMs where the nominator or their surrogates vehemently challenges every position that opposes theirs throughout the discussion.

There are really only three outcomes possible for an RM closure:

  • Not moved as requested
  • Moved as requested
  • Moved to alternative title suggested during the discussion.

Each of the above can be based on consensus in the RM discussion, policy/guideline arguments in the discussion, external evidence presented during the discussion (sources, google, etc.) or some combination of the three. If we create an RM review process it must be in sync with the closing instructions which unfortunately many editors participating in RMs are probably unaware of. So to proceed with this I think we ought to consider three things:

  • Are we satisfied with our RM closing instructions? Are there any vagaries that needed addressing? Should an RM review process hold closers accountable for following these instructions?
  • Can we create an RM review process that fairly accesses the closers actions and rationale when an RM participant brings an RM decision they disagree with up for review?
  • Can we create an RM review process that accedes to the fact that many RMs are marred with conflicting policy arguments, inconclusive evidence, cultural, political, and social battleground biases, allegations of ineligible participation and in-civility?—RMs regardless of outcome that will produce unhappy participants on one side of the closing decision or the other.

I believe we can, but have to consider all these elements of the RM process carefully. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

What happened to "relisting"? Since RMs take place in article talk pages, look at Talk:Trollhunter; it's getting larger in any minute. May I in WP:village pump (policy) or somewhere else propose a deep overhaul of the RM system by making RMs formatted like Did You Know and Articles for Deletion? --George Ho (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the act of relisting ought to be under the purview of an RM review process and neither is relisting a closure decision. On the other hand, providing significantly more structure and discipline to the RM process as you suggest would be a good thing. The difficult part of this however is that the policies around deletion are rather clear--its generally a notability question. And the DYK process is more around ensuring the content in the article is verifiable and in line with MOS. For RMs however, we are dealing with a whole phethora of conflicting policy WP:AT, MOS, naming conventions, and imprecise methods of determining common names, that a simple structure like DYK or AfD may be impossible. That said, I'd like to see an initative to improve the RM process wholesale. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree that "relisted" shouldn't really be a consideration for review. If an RM has been relisted it's still open, after all. As for RM's themselves, I personally feel that the process is working fairly well as it is. People are always willing to talk about it though, it's just a bit outside of the scope of this proposal. I'd recommend starting a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Requested moves.
— V = IR (Talk ‱ Contribs) 16:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Generally agree with Mike's comments (and I agree relisting is not something that should be review-able), but I think it's worth pointing out that there is a difference between "not moved – consensus against moving" and "no consensus – status quo retained". Although both have the same end result, they are as different as "keep" and "no consensus" at AfD. Jenks24 (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
    True, and it would be nice to take these sorts of lessons learned from AFD and apply them here, from the beginning.
    — V = IR (Talk ‱ Contribs) 21:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree that "relist" is not a close, and so is not reviewable. Contesting a relist sounds like someone doesn't have enough patience. At some point, a perpetual relist has to be closed, even if as "no consensus".

    I think the rules don't need tight codification. What we need is to see how it works. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Non admin

Regarding: "This process should not be used simply because the closer was not an admin. The reason for overturning should be based on poorly made decision, not on who made it.", should this actually be in here? Last I checked Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions specifically forbids non-admin closures (which is why I haven't hardly participated in RM's in probably 18 months, but that's a different subject).
— V = IR (Talk ‱ Contribs) 19:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

No, NACs were never forbidden, and the guidelines around NACs at RM have been loosened over the last month or so. Check out Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure. Jenks24 (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
oooh... it has been changed, hasn't it? Well, good!
— V = IR (Talk ‱ Contribs) 20:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
(ec)The fact is there have been closes by non admins. I don't know exactly how many since there is no easy way I know of to figure this out. However there have been cases where non admins have done closes that where contentious and were reverted. So the option would be to bring the close here or to simply revert the close with the possibility that it could still wind up here. So which is the better way to resolve the close? Reverting and maybe coming here or simply bringing it here? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Well then, I think the quote above is actually on point. If the close is being reverted simply because it's a non-admin close then that's wrong (which I've never had a problem with...), and there definitely needs to be some kind of discussion.
— V = IR (Talk ‱ Contribs) 20:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I think NACs should come here, but as the closing instructions say "All non-admin closures are subject to review by an admin", if the first admin to come along agrees the NAC was incorrect, then the discussion should just be speedily reopened. Does that sound reasonable? Jenks24 (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
...yea, sorta. As long as it's not "the NAC was incorrect because it was a NAC", but I think that I trust most admins not to do that anyway.
— V = IR (Talk ‱ Contribs) 21:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, agreed. Jenks24 (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
The current mechanism (any one admin can over-ride/reverse a NAC) is in place largely because we have no other mechanism. If we have this review process, why not just use that? (of course admins can be bold in egregious cases, as always) --Born2cycle (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, you have a reasonable point, but that effectively gives NACs almost as much weight as an admin closure. Wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, IMO, but as I perform quite a few NACs I'm pretty cautious about making them tougher to overturn. I'd be interested to hear what others think, especially those who are 'against' NACs. Jenks24 (talk)
Assuming they are correct, the biggest issue with NAC closes is if a page that needs fixing is protected. Admins don't have a problem making those fixes, but if the page if fully protected other editors will. Having said that, I suspect that this does not happen too often but when it does, it is an issue. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Need expansion or enough?

Is this proposal ready or needs expansion? --George Ho (talk) 09:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it is ready. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Given the dead time between comments and general support, I guess the next step would be to list on RfC. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
But what about discussion in WP:village pump (proposals)? --George Ho (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I've done a significant change to Discussion guidelines to clarify the Endorse result; its description didn't really provide any advice. Diego (talk) 11:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Must WP:CLOSE be changed?

Is there something wrong with this Information page? It is neither a policy nor guideline. Does it reflect this proposed process? --George Ho (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Why? are we discussing Wp:Close and not the RM closing instructions. The RM template says nothing about WP:Close. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
It does right now at "Discussion guidelines". --George Ho (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I was assuming WP:RMCI was a subset of WP:CLOSE tailored for WP:RM (based on its introduction to this page). If it's not, we should remove WP:CLOSE from this page and use WP:RMCI? -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's a what if scenario to help us think this through

There is an RM at: Talk:Opium_poppy#Requested_move which I just relisted so we could use it as sort of a case study (it will benefit from further input as well). However, if I had closed it and a review process was in place, what might a review have been concerned with.

  • I could have closed it as moved to the new title purely on the basis of consensus 3-1 in favor. (a consensus based close)
  • I could have closed it as not moved based on the flora naming convention as suggested by the one opposer. (a naming convention based close, and a close favored by the wording in WP:RMCI)
  • I could have also closed it by moving to the new title based on common name (a policy) where ngram data shows Opium Poppy to be a distant second in usage to the scientific name. (A purely policy based close (commonname)).

I think each close alternative is consistent with the instructions in WP:RMCI, so if it was challenged in an RMR process, on what grounds could the challenger make a case? Lets keep this high level and not delve into the specific RM debate details. I think each close alternative is consistent with the instructions in WP:RMCI, so if it was challenged in an RMR process, on what grounds could the challenger make a case? Lets keep this high level and not delve into the specific RM debate details. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I would say that closing it as "3-1 in favor" (if that was the closing comment for a close on the first bullet) would be challenge-able on WP:NOTVOTE (although I have seen many RMs closed on simply counting votes, whether or not the majority reflected the broader consensus from the applicable policies and guidelines). Any of them would otherwise be "kosher" closes, if they reflected the rough consensus of the non-discountable arguments or were based on naming conventions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The WP:NOTVOTE part is becoming disputed with the disputed tag. --George Ho (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Until the dispute is resolved with a new consensus, my conclusion is unchanged. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Not listing all involved pages

Sometimes a nominator may not list all pages involved. A common outcome today, is if the closer believes that there is no primary use, then one of the unlisted pages may be moved to a new dabbed name and if justified, a dab page created or a redirect left to one of the two pages. While this may be a technical violation of the closing rules so it probably can be discussed here if someone feels strongly about the decision. However, if the decision reflected common sense and primary usage, even if based on sketchy information, I don't think our intent would be to overturn solely on the improper listing. Correct? I will note that in some cases these may get relisted noting the other pages or closed as needing a new nomination with all pages listed when the closer sees larger issues with the proposal. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits to the Discussion guidelines

"Close" or "closure"

JHunterJ (00:12, 21 May 2012) converted four instances of "close" to "closure". Why? Close is what closers do. The close is what happened. Close is what people say. To talk of "closure" is to emphasis the act of closing, that is, the way it was done. RMRV is not about the technicality of the edit used to close. I think it is better to use simpler English unless more precision is needed. Here, it is not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I was going for consistency with the project page title. I don't care if it's moved to Wikipedia talk:Requested move/Close review if that's clearer. But whatever we're reviewing should be the thing the project page talks about reviewing. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I was in favour of Wikipedia:Requested move/review or Wikipedia:Requested move review, or maybe "moves" instead of move. Doesn't really matter. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Endorse

Endorse if the close was correct

or

Endorse if the close was made according to Wikipedia:Closing discussions: rough consensus, the spirit of Wikipedia policy and the project goal, and/or precedent

Diego Moya (10:45, 21 May 2012), yes, your edit improves by defining "correct" (a correct close of discussion, according to its reading at the time of closure). However, past closes may certainly be overturned due to new evidence. We should not prescribe these rules so tightly. A reason to overturn might be a subsequent discovery that the discussion was turned by sockpupetry. Or subsequent discovery of highly significant diffs in an unexpected locations perhaps due to an old copy-paste move, altering the implicaton of WP:RETAIN in a particular case. Or who knows what? Reviewers need to think holistically, not formulaically. It's nice that we present the basics of how to review, but in terms of rules I think all that is really important is that reviewers don't get personal and don't rehash points already made in the RM discussion.

Overall, I'm not comfortable with that edit, as it makes the guideline for "Endorse" probably more complicated that it needs be. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Mike Cline has proposed to change the Endorse sentence. Shall I do it now? --George Ho (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think a summarized description of what is "correct" is unnecesary detail. The altertative is linking to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions and forcing the reader of this guideline to read the whole process page to unerstand whether they should !vote for endorse or overturn. Diego (talk) 13:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe, how is a summary of "correct" a ban for reviewing new evidence? If there are new arguments or findings such as sockpupetry, those would mean that the close was against policy and thus show that it was not correct. Diego (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Diego, I read your summary has strengthening the implication that a review is limited to the state of affairs at the moment of close. On the other hands, "Endorse close but relist" is well accepted at DRV. I'm not against your edit, just voicing some uncertainty. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
That was not my intent. "Endorse and relist" would be a valid outcome recognizing that the admin made a valid decision given the current state at close but the move should be further discussed given new evidence. Diego (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Diego - I actually have no objection to including a summary of the instructions in the description of an endorse or overturn vote. However, the current wording rough consensus, the spirit of Wikipedia policy and the project goal, and/or precedent does not do the instructions justice and is actually different than what the instructions say. If I were to summarize what the instruction says the description would list policy, naming conventions and consensus in that order and there would be no equivocal and/or in the statement. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
That's OK, word order doesn't make any difference to me. Diego (talk) 13:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
How is it different than what the instructions say? If the considerations are ordered here, the corresponding ordering should be applied to WP:CLOSE, which currently AFAICT does not rank the considerations for closing. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Overturn

Overturn if the close did not reflect the discussion, or did not consider established policy

An RMRV participant may well !vote "Overturn", in their subject opinion, if either (1) the closer went out on their own supervote and closed contrary to the discussion, or (2) their entire discussion, participants and closer alike, were apparently ignorant of some relevant policy. It is not right that, Vegaswikian (01:39, 29 April 2012‎) & JHunterJ (00:16, 21 May 2012), that rule-writers should constrain RMRV participants to only call "overturn" if both (1) and (2) are true. A closer supervoting may be overturned, even if he cites policy. A discussion may be overturned even if everyone agreed, if the whole discussion was ignoring established policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Mike Cline has proposed to change the Overturn sentence. Shall I do it now? --George Ho (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm attempting to make sure these instructions line up with WP:CLOSE. "Many closures are based upon consensus. ... The desired standard is rough consensus, not perfect consensus. Please also note that closing admins are expected and required to exercise their judgment to ensure the decision complies with the spirit of Wikipedia policy and with the project goal.... Many closures are also based upon Wikipedia policy. As noted above, arguments that contradict policy are discounted." There is also an empty section about "Precedent". I am concerned that language that "Overturn" can be used when the close did not follow consensus or when the close did not follow policy will mean that a proper close (one that discounted arguments contrary to policy or project goal and thus appears to go against rough consensus) will get overturned by a review re-!vote with the same discounted arguments. If the close follows WP:CLOSE (which is either consensus or policy), it should be upheld. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The proposed you made (Overturn if the close reflected neither the rough consensus of the discussion nor established policies and guidelines) doesn't reflect strong non-policy arguments that could overcome the policy arguments. The proposal here (if the close did not reflect the rough consensus of the discussion, and/or the discussion ignored established policy) would indicate that WP:CLOSE must be changed if or before this process happens. --George Ho (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
You're right, and it shouldn't. "Strong" arguments don't contradict policy -- "strong" arguments align with policy. A "strong" argument that goes against one policy would need to align with WP:IAR and show (with consensus) that ignoring the other rule improves the encyclopedia. Too often WP:IAR is used to simply ignore policies an editor disagrees with, regardless of the help (or harm) to the encyclopedia. And if there's demonstrable benefit to the encyclopedia, an argument that contradicts a policy can't be "strong". If the proposal here is intended to change WP:CLOSE, I agree WP:CLOSE should be changed first. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
So when the closer considers the options for three target names and none of them clearly meets primary use, that would be overturned? Is there some point where say 80% or 90% supporting one option would allow primary use to be overridden? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow. If 90% of the votes are discountable because they go against the broader consensus policies or guidelines without explanation, I wouldn't think so. If the 90% form a consensus to ignore the policy or guideline because there is a benefit to the encyclopedia to do so in the current case, then yes, WP:IAR would apply. The arguments I usually see for ignoring a policy or guideline are not because that particular case would benefit the encyclopedia, though, but because of general disagreement with the policy or guideline misplaced in a localized discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
A recent closer considered the options for moving a page to the main name space and moving the dab page that was there. Because of the actual nomination, two of the three options were not fully discussed. In addition, the consensus to move was weak at best. So in a case like this where a dab page is going to be moved, don't we need a strong consensus to do so? The closing comment was that the case for the option actually listed was better then then others. My point is that if we are going to move a dab page, a strong case and clear consensus are needed with all options being fully discussed. If this was just a simple page move, a strong case that with a a weak consensus could be correct. Dab pages are really a special case and should only be replaced with a clear and convincing case. I could mention the move, but I do not wish to bring that baggage here. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I could mention the move, but I do not wish to bring that baggage here. I'll gladly do so. It was the move surrounding Las Vegas (Talk:Las Vegas (disambiguation)#Requested move, May 2012), which Vegaswikian has been arguing against for years. I think the idea of a closure review to provide a formal process for contesting move closures is perfectly fine, but it should not be based on one editor's indignation toward a move request closed in an entirely proper manner. A formal review process should not require higher than normal levels of consensus or allow decisions to be overturned on spurious accusations of impropriety. -- tariqabjotu 20:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
(ec) I'm not sure I see the special case there for dabs. Ideally any move would have a strong case and a strong consensus, and lacking both case and consensus any move would not be done. Are you saying that, in the gray area in between those two poles, a change from "no primary topic" to "primary topic" would need to meet a higher standard than a change from "primary topic" to "no primary topic"? Or just that any change in topics (or nav pages) reached from any title would need a higher standard than "normal" moves (moves in which the same topic continues to be reached from both the current/old and new/proposed name)? I hadn't considered it before, but I could see a reason for the latter distinction. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think we are in agreement then. I know I did not close many RMs but instead elected to comment on this specific issue to hopefully avoid a move that would not be correct. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if both need to be true or if either one on its own is a good reason to revert. I also have an issue with the statement ignorant of some relevant policy. It might be better to state that concern as elected to ignore or discount relevant policy. When you have only one policy or guideline in play, things are easier. But when you have several policies and guidelines in play this is more complicated. The concern with super voting is valid, but identifying cases is difficult. One thought. Generally closes don't indicate how the closer weighed the various guidelines. So a review may well simply need to only highlight a guideline that may not have received sufficient consideration to overrule the close. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, JHunter and I agree that something must be done to the WP:CLOSE before the "closure review" on move requests happen. First, I will go to WP:village pump (idea lab) to develop an idea. --George Ho (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that if this page is not going to agree with WP:CLOSE, then the change to WP:CLOSE should be made first. Or, this page can proceed by conforming to WP:CLOSE (which is how I've tried to edit it). -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Alternative wording to Intended scope of closure review

I drafted an alternative paragraph for this section based on the discussions (opposes to current proposal) and my particular concern about the phrase "the close was in someway wrong". Any thoughts --Mike Cline (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I wrote that. Yes, it was rough and informal. To my reading, your alternative says the same thing in more formal English. The word "rehash" is also a bit rough.
It still begins with a "not". I'm a believer that things are better written, especially in draft form, when the postive defiitions (The intend scope is...) and separate and preceded the "not"s, the negative "definitions". The "not" statements don't define, but mark out an outer border that is not particularly useful in a first reading. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Agree and have tweaked the wording a bit. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Unclear text

I have to say that I find it difficult to make head or tail of many of the meanings in the proposal. For example, what does this mean?

"This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly."

Tony (talk) 06:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

That example was pretty bad. It looks like it carried inapropriate wording directly from the introduction to WP:DRV. Would you like to highlight or colour other awkward text to draw attention to the problems. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Page name (suggestion #1)

As I think someone else was noting above, the word "close" is probably better contextually than "closure".

I realise that this page is taking much from "deletion review", and so the order of the wording has been chosen related to that, but I think that maybe we should reverse the wording to "Review close". Because if we think about it, that's what is being done here, each commenter is reviewing a particular close. (As an aside, the page could then be abbreviated to WP:RM/RC.)

Otherwise I would suggest that "closure" is odd without the (presumed) word "discussion". But I could see that some might object to the page being called "Wikipedia:Requested moves/Discussion closure review". (Due to length etc.)

So to restate, I'd like to suggest that we move this page to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Review close.

What do you all think? - jc37 11:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


Process question - post review responsibility?

Given that there are 3 alternatives for a review decision but in reality there are 6 because moves have 2 results--moved or not moved, what are the post-review responsibilities of the original closer, and the review closer?

  • If the reviewer endorses the original close, no additional actions are required.
  • However, if the review overturns the original close, whose responsibility is it to restore the article to its pre-move state. This isn't an issue with a No Move close, but can be an issue if the original close was a move over a redirect and/or required history merges, eliminating double-redirects, involved multiple articles and dab pages, etc. Does the original closer, the review closer or another admin have to clean up the situation?
  • If Relist is the review decision and a complex move has already been made, the same question as above arises.

Right now, the original closer is instructed to take the appropriate actions to move any article and clean up when a move is made. I think we should we address these responsibilities in the Closure Review guideline as well? --Mike Cline (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


If the discussion has gone to review, and is accepted for review, and is not straight Endorsed, then the old closer should be considered WP:INVOLVED and should take no further admin actions associated with that page. All subsequent actions should be taken by, or at least supervised by, the review closer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Alternatives for a review decision

It is not a good idea to put reviewers in straightjackets. Assume competence and responsibility and they will rise to the occassion. Over-legislate and you'll create wiki-laywers.

I can count a few more than 6 review discussion outcomes:

  • List at WP:RM
  • Re-list at WP:RM
  • Endorse close but re-list at WP:RM
  • Endorse
  • Overturn
  • Overturn and re-list
  • Overturn and move-protect
  • [[WP:TROUT|Slap]] the closer, with
  • leave the title where it is, or
  • move it back, or
  • re-list.
  • Close (not in the scope of this review process)
  • Close (RMRV is not a forum for personal attacks)
  • Close (RMRV is not RM#2)
  • One of the above and advise a better course of action next time
  • One of the above and warn someone
  • One of the above and WP:BLOCK someone
  • No consensus (the RM close stands)

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Some questions on the wording

One section says Once nominated any involved editor is free to revert any undiscussed moves without those actions being considered a violation of Wikipedia:No wheel warring. So if I'm working on an article, I can nominate for discussion and revert any discussed move? Can any editor revert an admin's move? I think this may need a rewrite.

Also we have there two statements:

Endorse if the close was made according to Wikipedia:Closing discussions: rough consensus, the spirit of Wikipedia policy and the project goal, and/or precedent
Overturn if the close did not follow Wikipedia:Closing discussions

Shouldn't these better mirror each other?

Also something about the wording leads me to think there this says, if consensus is unclear we should not overturn. If consensus is not clear, shouldn't any close other then no consensus be overturned? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Once nominated any involved editor is free to revert any undiscussed moves without those actions being considered a violation of Wikipedia:No wheel warring.

I suggest: "Please don't move the page during the discussion"
Is this a common problem? If a move war occurs, wouldn't many admins call "disruption" and move-protect the page? I don't think the other words are helpful. Wikipedia:No wheel warring explains well enough the various aspects of wheel warring.
RE the "So if I'm working on an article" question: It sounds like a question of an insincere WP:RM nomination, and a need for speedy close criteria. Do we have these? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I suppose at some point we will need to discuss the supporting templates. That warning would seem appropriate for listing in the article or talk page relisting template, Depending on what is decided here. While the rename and discussions are only listed on the talk page, a review might be better listed on the main page. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Should the "Endorse" and "Overturn" statements mirror each other?

It would look more elegant if they did. I'm not a fan of either current statement, but I don't think that these guidelines will be very influential in practice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Case Study - A bit of a move war - how would our review process handle this

An ongoing RM Talk:SS Raifuku Maru was closed with a move by one of the participants in this discussion. Another editor immediately reverted the move. I move protected the article to prevent further move warring. How would our review process handle this? --Mike Cline (talk) 02:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


Yes, G-13114 (talk · contribs) disagrees with the close, and not having a defined process use, resorts to a bold revert. Should the closer move it back and move-protect the page? Should G-13114 be blocked? Should G-13114 be allowed to simply have his way, he is clearly the owner of the page in May 2012 anyway? No, this is a clear case for a review.

G-13114 should be encouraged to ask the closer to explain his close. In this case, I wouldn't expect him to, because the closers rationale is clear, and G13114 clearly disagrees.

So G-13114 nominates this close for review. He has written on the talk page "Er why has this been moved when there was no consensus to move it?", so maybe his nomination statement would be

"Overturn. There was no consensus for this move" signed G-13114

He should be required to notify the closer on the closer's talk page that this close is listed for review. He should be required to post a note on the article talk page, advising of and linking to the review discussion. If he does not do these things, then someone else please do it for him. If he is not a review regular, don't point out to him that he didn't do certain things.

My !vote would probably be:

"Overturn (relist). The closer supervoted, closing based on evidence/logic not present in the discussion. The closer's input was significant, but it should be included in the discussion as an ordinary !vote."

I would not !vote "Overturn (no consensus)" because the closer's input was significant and is likely to prompt further discussion, and even if not, may allow a new closer to to close decidedly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I do note that when the !votes are split (2-2 in this case), and there is support in the arguments and article for one conclusion (consistency with other Japanese ships, usage in the article's references), closing it based on reading the arguments, the guidelines, and the article (my "input") would be a normal application of WP:NOTVOTE, not a "supervote". -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Going off-topic here, pretending this is actually a requested move close review... It was a "supervote" because the closer simultaneously participated in the discussion and performed the administrative close. The problem is not that the right decision wasn't made. The problem is that the right process wasn't seen to be followed. An expert supervote close is very likely to be the right decision, but it is belittling to the participants. It plays to the senior-wiser admin junior newcomer model, more easily perceived by one side than the other. It diminishes the function of the RM discussion as a learning excercise for all involved. It is far better that the closer limits himself strictly to the content of the discussion. If there are facts, or relevant policy concerns, that need to be considered, and are not yet considered, then the discussion should not be closed. Upon the introduction of new significant facts or policy points, the previous and future participants need time to consider. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
But when I don't go into detail on what went into the conclusion (or "participate", if that's what that is), actual participants who !voted the other way object that it was against consensus, a supervote, opaque, and otherwise improper. So when it's not a nearly unanimous consensus that lines up with the guidelines, I tend to go into that detail. WP:RMCI even says to, at least in the direction of a "Not moved" conclusion: "Further, any move request that is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it." which seems a lot like the belittling description above. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
JHunterJ, I have to agree with SmokeyJoe that an Admin should do more than "take the right decision", because most of the time there's no right decision to be made with respect to policy and guidelines and all depends to the editors analyzing each particular case; this is the spirit as well as the letter of how Wikipedia policy works. Guidelines are there to inform participants in the local discussion, not to establish clear-cut cases defining how to proceed at each step. For that reason, the closing admin should usually retract from using guidelines not brought up in the discussion unless they unambiguously and directly provide the right action that should be taken. If a guideline has not been considered yet, the admin should not close but participate to introduce it, thus allowing the other editors to react to its inclusion as relevant to the conversation.
In this particular discussion:
  • There was no consensus that COMMONNAME favoured the name without a prefix. User G-13114 had explicitly called into question the nominator's assertion that Japanese ships did not routinely use ship prefixes, and Mike Cline called for a thorough discussion.
  • There was no consensus that consistency would support removing the prefix. User Mjroots pointed out that the prefix is usually included for ship names.
  • WP:NOTVOTE, which you used to support the close, means that discussions are intended to reach consensus. Closing a discussion where no rough consensus has been reached will prevent futher discussion and is undesirable, and against the goals of NOTVOTE - which doesn't mean only that the number of editors at each side doesn't matter; it also says that ALL arguments have to be addressed, and that further discussion is preferred over a hard decision.
For these reasons, closing the discussion as anything other than "no consensus" is a way to introduce your own evaluation of the guidelines at hand, instead of using the evaluations of the other editors up to that point. The problem here is that none of the available guidelines provided clear advice one direction or the other (since both positions were compatible with policy), but you acted as if they did. Also, by not addressing in the close rationale the arguments raised up by opposing editors, it seems that you took sides instead of fairly evaluating all points of view - there's no evidence in the closing decision that all concerns were taken into account. Under this conditions, it would have been preferable that you participated in the discussion with a !vote of your own to advance consensus and elicit further discussion, giving editors a chance to evaluate your position, instead of by closing it and prevent further consensus-building. A "no consensus" closure would have been the second best option.
Nothing in my analysis above is personal against you; I just have witnessed in several of the closes you have performed, and I've found that you have a pattern of perform those actions in your decissions. At some point you'd have to ask yourself why so many of the move discussions you close are immediatly contested, sometimes by a majority of participants at one side; when a close really supports consensus, the usual effect is that most editors will accept its result, accepting it as fair even if it doesn't fully support their positions. It's also a signal that all arguments have been evaluated in depth to their last consequences, so there's nothing more to say; i.e. the discussion is closed for natural resons - because the debate is exhausted, not because an administrator happens to say so. Diego (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Nothing personal taken -- in the SS * Maru cases in particular, either result makes no difference in which article text readers reach through either title search. I assume that so many of the move discussions I close are immediately contested because I close a lot of move discussions that have !votes on both support & oppose sides. The close notes are intended to explain how the opposing concerns were considered (in this case, the references in the article use the name that the opposers were questioning if it was in use). In other cases, some of the opposers know what the guidelines say but disagree with them and so !vote contrary to the guidelines anyway (WP:PRECISION springs to mind) rather than pursuing a change in the guideline consensus. Those closures got contested immediately (and IMO improperly) for that reason. WP:NOTVOTE and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS make a distinction between "consensus" and "majority of participants on one side of a particular discussion". I would indeed be happier if our naming conventions formed a nice self-consistent hierarchy, with "tricky" questions in any particular topic area with a determinable conclusion consistent within the area and any encompassing areas. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Discussion not directly related to this thread subject
I have to ask - why if you find that there's more to say in a discussion with respect to policy and guidelines, you close it instead of just adding your opinion? What's the benefit of adding the close tag? The conversation can proceed since consensus can change anyway, so unless the closure is a signal of a real consensus it won't achieve anything; if there is a possibly of new arguments to be introduced that are not just rehashes of everything already said, the discussion is not really closed - so what does the admin involvement achieve in such case? (other than annoying half the participants, I mean). This is not a rhetorical question, I want to know what you think is gained in such cases.
In your argument above you seem to forget that a !vote contrary to the guidelines is perfectly acceptable and a valid argument for the course of action to follow, as long as it provides a reason why the guideline doesn't apply or isn't the best solution. In such cases the close move rationale should always address that reason even if it's for dismissing it, ideally by using one of the counter-arguments provided by some other editor in the discussion and not introducing a new one that couldn't be contested. Diego (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
If a !vote for WP:IAR actually follows WP:IAR and explains how contradicting the guidelines helps the encyclopedia in the given case, I don't discount it. That rarely comes up, though. Usually we want to ignore rules because we wish the rules said something else; them saying something else wouldn't harm the encyclopedia, but since they don't, ignoring them doesn't help. The gain in closing it is that the conversation cannot go on and on until everyone is happy -- everyone will never be happy. There's a backlog of RMs awaiting closure; closing a discussion and moving on to the next thing is usually (or would usually be) better for the project too. I don't close them with the expectation that any particular one will be immediately reopened. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
There are also cases when people don't ignore the rules but some use them in one way, and some other people use them in a different way, and both are reasonable interpretations of the rule as applied to the particular case. In such cases the administrator should never side with one of the interpretations in the close, because there isn't a global consensus on how the rule should to be applied to the situation at hand - your argument of LOCALCONSENSUS being superseded just doesn't apply there. If that argument is a core one to the discussion, the only reasonable close is a no consensus; doing anything else is the definition of a supervote; and the benefit you describe (ending the discussion) would be achieved exactly in the same way. There's no need to take a positive decission in every open discussion, and doing so is actually discouraged by WP:CONSENSUS which says that all valid concerns should be satisfied. Any attempt to stop discussion that falls short of that goal or really near to it is actually against that policy.
The point of a close is not to get everybody happy but to signal that there is nothing more to say. If the disuussion is immediately reopened with a valid argument it means that the close was a faux pas, the close position didn't coincide with the discussion it purported to summarize. Diego (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you can read WP:LOCALCONSENSUS with that conclusion. There's never global consensus for how any rule should be applied to any particular current move request, AFD, RFC, etc., and yet WP:LOCALCONSENSUS says that the local consensus at any particular current discussion can't decide that WP:PRECISION doesn't apply to them, for instance. They could argue that applying WP:PRECISION would harm the encyclopedia, and so apply WP:IAR, but that's not the experience I've had. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not reading LOCALCONSENSUS, I'm saying that it's not a valid reason for some of the decisions you've taken. In some discussions you closed, you've said that a particular guideline supported some particular decision and adopted it as consensus, when the guideline could reasonably be interpreted as supporting BOTH ways of the discussion and both positions appeared in it. In that case, siding with one of the positions is not supported by the global consensus as reflected in a guideline because both positions are consistent with the guideline. This applies to your appeal to WP:COMMONNAME above, but I'm thinking in special of all those discussions where you used pageview statistics as support for a primary topic - even when many users opposed their use with arguments that also used what is in PRIMARYTOPIC. This is not using a global consensus to override a local consensus, is reading the guideline for a global consensus that is not there. Diego (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
The criteria for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC are usage (page views, incoming wikilinks, web/news/book/scholar search hits) and relative long-term significance, and WP:PRECISION says to be precise, but not to add unnecessary precision. The arguments that I've discounted are neither of those, but rather "This is obviously ambiguous", "Too many topics", "Not the first topic I think of", "Not well known enough". -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Whatever. IIRC at least two of the discussions you closed where immediately continued in a civil way arriving to a different conclusion, showing that they weren't really closed. If you were expecting to finish conversations with the close tags, it's not working. Diego (talk) 08:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Really? "Whatever"? You've also misread "I don't close them with the expectation that any particular one will be immediately reopened." as "I expect every one will be finished with the close." Whatever. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
"Whatever" means "I can't assess your intentions and mental process when performing the close, but I can assess how it all looked in the end", which is what I did above. In the discussions I was referring to, there were heavy indicators that they were nowhere finished - there had not been enough effort from editors to reach agreements, guidelines didn't provide direct advice, and arguments had not been explored to their conclusions; so expecting any of them to be finished with anything other that "no consensus" was being naive at best, and taking a position in the closure was not being neutral but siding with one of the positions. Diego (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
"Whatever" doesn't mean that, whatever you intended to say instead. Which discussion(s) are you referring to? I do agree, every close I've closed as "moved" or "not moved" sided with one of the positions (after neutrally evaluating both positions and the relevant guidelines). -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
If both positions are based in the relevant guidelines, siding with one of them is not being neutral, in special when you dismiss without notice some of the arguments in the other position. This is what happened at Talk:Lovin' You (which was re-opened and has not been re-closed yet) and Talk:All That Jazz (film) (closed after one week with very few participants and absolutely all arguments from both sides contested by the other, and unresolved with respect to the guideline). Diego (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Talk:Lovin' You has not reached a different conclusion and does not appear to be going to. Another admin should indeed go ahead and close it. When I closed it, I returned it to the stable name despite the supposedly uncontroversial request, the seven days had elapsed, nothing had been added on the previous day and no new participants had joined since the first day of discussion. Talk:All That Jazz (film) was moved with 4 participants, only one of whom !voted with any guidelines to support the !vote, and no discussion for 6 days. So they (still) appear to me to be good closes. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Only one supporter at All That Jazz arguing by the guidelines? No wonder that you were surprised when the discussion was reopened. The IP said "song and film are both popular" (a usage-based criterion), Noetica defended a "genuine help to a great number of Wikipedia's worldwide readers" (what's best for the readership) and argued against Kauffner's assertion that pageviews demonstrate use (saying that a guideline doesn't apply is also a guideline-based argument), and Powers made a significance argument, noting that a derivative topic shows the long-term notability of its origin. If this is the way you evaluate policy I begin to understand how you can disregard half of the arguments based on it. You wondered why those discussions were immediately reopened; I've tried to explain it to you so that you won't be surprised again - and with the vain hope that you will learn to recognize which arguments are based in policy even when they don't coincide with the subset of policy you like. Now doing it is up to you. Diego (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
"both are popular" is not a usage-based argument. "Both are equally popular" would be a usage-based argument. No, saying that you disagree with the guidelines and would rather do something else because you're sure it's a "genuine help to a great number of readers" (despite the guidelines consensus that the opposite is a genuine help to a great number of readers) is not a guidelines-based argument. Derivation is not a guidelines argument. I've tried to explain the actual guidelines in the move closures, in the discussions on WT:D and elsewhere, and here, without getting on a high horse about vain hopes of you ever understanding it. My likes or dislikes of the policies are irrelavant; I use the parts of the disambiguation guidelines I argued against just as easily as the parts I argued for. I don't use what's not there, however, and pretending that an argument based on what's not there is based on the guideline is ridiculous. If that's your teaching platform, it is in vain. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok, the hard fact is that in article and disambiguation moves related to Primary topic, discussions you close tend to be re-opened five minutes after you closed them and go on for several more weeks. You can interpret this fact as evidence that Wikipedia is full of whiners, or that you're interpreting how guidelines work in a different way than everybody else and making premature closes. Your call. Diego (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Or, apparently you can look at that "hard fact" and turn it into a false dichotomy. Many, many more of the discussions relating to moves to/from primary topic that I close are not reopened. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Good discussion, exactly why we need to be sure that we are comfortable with the wording of WP:RMCI because that is the constitution (if you will) of the RM review process. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Almost a good discussion. A better discussion has more participants speaking from diverse viewpoints, and doesn't have deeply threaded conversations. (This is not intended to criticise threaded discussions in review per se)
I disagree with WP:RMCI being considered a constitutional document. I consider it no more than a highly significant reference document. As I said above (02:26, 22 May 2012), the most important thing is: “Did the page end up where it should”. The second most important thing is whether process (See Meatball:FairProcess) was followed and seen to be followed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
WP:RM is for "is the page where it should be". WP:RM/CR is for "was the process followed". IMO. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I think we have a clear consensus for starting a functional review page. We just need someone technically skilled to set it up. I am very confident that the review process will work itself out with time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Apology to JHunterJ - Didn't mean for this to put JHunterJ on the spot, just thought it was an interesting case. But the substance of the discussion above does highlight some of the complexity of reviewing RM closes made in good faith by admins or non-admins. Unlike Deletion Review, where essentially there is only one criteria--notability--in play, titling discussions involved multiple criteria, conflicting policies and guidelines as well as external empirical evidence all of which can be interpreted by different participants in different ways. Having done both, I find RM closes to be intrinsically more complex decisions than an AfD close. Thus, any review process we initiate must recognize that intrinsic complexity upfront. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    "Unlike Deletion Review, where essentially there is only one criteria--notability--in play" I disagree. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    No worries, Mike Cline. I think having a concrete example to dig into has been helpful. And I can always stop replying, right? (I can quit any time, really.) We can trot out Talk:Trollhunter#Move back to Trolljegeren? for another example where a close of mine blew up (needlessly, IMO, of course), where a formal review process might have helped avoid the fireworks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, the above case study discussion went off-track and reveals another needed Not: RMCR is not an RFC/U on the closer - each review discussion need to focus on the single RM discussion nominated. After the close of the review, a review of broader issues might be a good idea, probably at WT:RM. I think much of the discussion above should be moved or collapsed. This is not the place to review JHunterJ. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
    Which "above case"? As for "Not", do you mean "Note"? --George Ho (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
    I think he refers to my talk with JHunterJ. I didn't intend it either to be focused in JHunterJ's closures, but I had to ask about his style. I am concerned in general about the ability of admins to do whatever they feel like when closing a move; it should not give a them free pass with no recourse, by following a bureaucratic procedure, to dismiss half the discussion. If this WP:RMCI is going to be discussed as suggested to review the deeper issues, this closure review process should wait until it's done or not refer to it. It doesn't make sense to define a new process under a guideline that is likely to change. Diego (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
    I don't know how many more times this bears repeating, but when the discussion is split half and half, there is no conclusion that does not disagree with (not "dismiss") half the discussion, and disagreeing with the half that itself disagrees with the guidelines is not "dismissing half the discussion". Any individual move request is not the place to trot out one's disapproval of the consensus guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
    And once again, I'm referring to the case when the discussion is split half and half, and both halves agree with the guidelines so no "half that disagree with the guidelines" exist, and it also bears repeating that this case mustn't be defined as consensus ever, because it isn't. The point I'm making is that the closing admin currently has the power to decide how guidelines apply to the case on a completely personal way based on his/her opinion, thus giving him/her power over everyone else in the discussion whose opinions can be answered ; nobody can reply to the closing admin so s/he has a free pass to turn opinion into rule. If the admin thinks that s/he is following the guidelines and everybody else thinks that the guidelines don't support the close, the review process should allow for the discussion to be reopened on that basis. Diego (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
    Absolutely agreed that the review process should allow for the discussion to be reopened based on mis-applied guidelines. That is much different than my "style", or objecting because the contrary "guidelines-based" argument was that the !voter doesn't agree with the guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
    Ok. But how can you tell the difference between cases where a guideline was misapplied by the admin and when a !voter doesn't agree with what the guideline says, before the review is performed? Diego (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Process

I have added a new section for the process. This was lifted from DRV. The templates to support this do not exist, but if there is a working consensus for these steps and templates they can easily be added by using the DRV ones as a guide. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Perth

Per some of the above discussion, I put more description into my close at Talk:Perth, Western Australia. Given the amount of text I put into, the admin who then undid my close and closed it as "no consensus" took my descriptive closing comments as too much opinion and indicative that I was casting a vote instead. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The admin who undid the close has a userbox indicating membership in "Medieval Scotland WikiProject". This at leaves gives the outward appearance of having a personal stake in reversing the original close. What happens now? — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I restored the move. Given how long this debate has gone on, I don't think wheel warring is a good idea. It was closed properly, and if that is not acceptable to some people, they should go through the same channels as the original request. Or if the mover has a COI, take it to ANI. — kwami (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Page name (suggestion #2)

After posting the above I was thinking more about DRV. Something interesting is that a DRV may review a deletion even if it is not as a result of a discussion. So maybe another way to go with this page could be to just call this: Wikipedia:Requested moves/Move review. (WP:RM/MR)

But if we do, that would definitely be broadening the purview of this page beyond simply reviewing a close to potentially reviewing any move, including WP:BOLD ones.

Thoughts? - jc37 11:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I like that one, "Move review". I remember opposing a suggestion that looked like something that could turn into a general "admin close review", to cover WP:RM closes, but ready to generalise to RFC closes, strawpoll closes, maybe even RFA closes. I think this process should be specific for page moves, and "Move" belongs in its title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Something which we may wish to keep in mind is that while only admins can delete, (potentially) any editor can move a page. I'm not saying that that's necessarily a bad thing, just that we should remain aware of the purview change to this page/process this would bring. And in a sense, could very well turn this page into a de facto RfC page concerning bold moves. - jc37 13:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Contested speedy deletion nominations are welcome at DRV, where I almost always state that for most speedies, they should be listed at XfD solely on the basis of a reasonable contest. Almost invariably, this is what happens.
Similarly for page moves, a contest of the move should go straight to the first WP:RM discussion. An exception would be where there has been a previous WP:RM discussion, and somebody wants to forcefully ignore the old discussion. In this case, WP:RMRV might endorse the old RM discussion, or send it back to a fresh RM discussion with some interim solution (use for now the old name or the new name).
WP:RMRV might be used to review move-protections, although this is what WP:RFPU does, and where there are facts to discuss, a new RM discussion is very likely the way to go.
I don’t think this is likely to turn into a an RfC page concerning bold moves, as instead the review discussions should send the discussion to the proper forum, which is WP:RM.
This is what I think will happen, and I think it wil be all fine. We can review the process and instructions when we see how it works in practice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Based on the above, I've moved the page and (I believe) updated all the links. Also found a category for the associated templates. - jc37 16:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Well I moved it again, from Wikipedia:Requested moves/Move review to Wikipedia:Move review. After I started wading into the templates and the subpages and the like, this was just an added level of subpagination which looked like (at the minimum) it would likely confuse new editors (and maybe some not-so-new editors). If anyone has any concerns, I welcome discussion on this. - jc37 17:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Is this page ready now?

With the wake of recent events, I wonder if we must propose an establishment at its state now. --George Ho (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The Perth case has shown that that this process is not yet ready in the sense that the community is not accepting it in favour of simply reverting faulty closures. Agathoclea (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, the page is ready. The most serious objection is that it is tagged as a proposal. There is overwhelming support for a review process, it's time to retag. It barely even warranted a proposal tag. It is not a new rule, just a centralised place for certain discussions. WP:ANI was not appropriate as no serious rule was broken and no use of technical admin privilege was involved. Continuing the discussion on a user_talk page is not best because the issue, and certainly precedents, are bigger than a couple of editors. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    As you said. It is the perception of this process that must be changed in the community. The community was not ready to use a process viewed as incomplete/under construction to digress from previous procedure as ad-hoc as that was. Agathoclea (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The alternative to this page seems to be a full-fledged wheel war, since yet another admin (Gnangarra) has now re-re-reverted, with what I believe to be a deceptive edit summary: "as per discussion at closing admin talk page". That edit summary implies that some differing points of view were resolved through the discussion that took place there, which was not the case. JHunterJ's participation in that discussion (after Gnangarra began his posts there) consisted of a single 12-word sentence which did not signal acquiescence to Gnangarra's viewpoint. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 08:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • In the review, assuming considered differences of opinion, the closer is a very important, but INVOLVED person. It is best if the closer speaks, but does not feel obliged to respond to all others. The closer certainly should not own, moderate or close the review. The closer's talk page is therefore a bad place to hold the review. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Exactly. Also, there was nothing discussed with Gnangarra at my talk page except the fact that another admin reverted my move. My close is still as accurate and compliant as I can make it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
      • I think with the cleanup done by jc37 the templates and the pages are ready if you want to give then a try for this closure problem. We can find out how this works. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
        • How exactly will this work, procedurally, in this specific case? The procedure outlined is for contesting the close of a requested move, but the move has now been reversed (and re-reversed). The reversals don't fall under move review, because they were not done as closure of a requested move and they will probably be the subject of an RfArb as wheel-warring. I don't think JHunterJ can initiate the move review, since per step 3 he would have to inform himself. Perhaps the folks who have been active in creating and editing this page can initiate the process and shepherd it through, and exercise some oversight to prevent it from going off the rails. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
          • Well, if someone wants to take the administrative action to RfArb, they can do that. I guess what would need move reviewing here is the original close to see if that was procedurally OK. So I'll consider nominating that one. The fact that other moves have occurred is not an impediment for reviewing the first close since that is where the basic issue lies. If that move is supported, then we go from there. Just remember that the review has a relist as a possible outcome. So it could wind up back for additional discussing. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Templates and categories

I'm still slapping the templates together, but they may be useable once we decide on the name for the daily lists. Also at this point, I'm dropping the articles into Category:Articles on deletion review. I don't believe that we discussed that aspect above. So unless someone wishes to change this to a new category, that should work for the near term. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

What about creating a new category: Category:Review on move closure or something? Categories that relate to DRV are inappropiate. --George Ho (talk) 04:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
That is an option. I have no idea how many editors, if any, follow the new discussions from the categories. If any do then using an existing category would get more editors involved. If not, then having a new category is no problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Shall we halt categorizing and worry about that later then? If not, then shall we make an idea of creating one related category in WP:village pump (idea lab)? --George Ho (talk) 05:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Ignoring the category issue for now, I have a few of the templates used on my talk page for testing here. Feel free to look at them and tweak as needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian (talk ‱ contribs) 06:22, 9 June 2012‎ (UTC)

Neat... needs a log header, like Template:deletion review log header. --George Ho (talk) 06:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a header on the test log for the 10th. Looks like if has a few bugs, so if someone can check it out and fix the bugs, that would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian (talk ‱ contribs) 07:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Should Wikipedia:Requested move/Closure review/Log header/guts‎ be changed to Template:RM closure review log header/guts‎, a different mirror of Template:Deletion review log header/guts? --George Ho (talk) 07:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Done. (Changed guts to core though : ) - jc37 18:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I did some wading into the templates. One thing that would be nice in the changeover from DRV to MRV templates would be if someone would like to find some RM examples to replace the XFD examples in the doc pages.

I also found the category: Category:Wikipedia page name maintenance templates. But I think any requested move and move review templates should probably be split to a subcat. - jc37 17:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC) - jc37 17:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Added this too: Category:Pages at move review (per Category:Pages at deletion review). - jc37 18:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:move review/Log/2012 June 14

For the curious, this log is now created. Feel free to join. --George Ho (talk) 03:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Do We Really Need This?

Why not extend requested moves instead if there is no consensus?Curb Chain (talk) 05:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

If discussion is adequate, "no consensus" would mean no consensus to relist and no consensus to move. If something must be changed, changing the general process of Wikipedia must come first, not an article title. All rules must be followed, yet sometimes ignoring one benefits. --George Ho (talk) 05:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Identification of participants in original move discussion

I think it's safe to insert a line that closers should identify as such in any comments. It's probably almost as safe to insert a prohibition against their endorsing, since it can be assumed. Should participants in the original discussion identify as such in their endorse/overturn comments (since these can be expected to line up almost perfectly with their !votes)? -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

  • I agree that particpants should mention their previously stated positions in the RM debate, and any other strong biases. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Suggest, but not mandate... And honestly, I would like to hope that those commenting in the discussion have read the close under discussion, and so, should be well aware of who closed the discussion. - jc37 14:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree with "should" not "must". It is Very much easier on the reviewers if they don't have to remember exactly who it was who said what in a long discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

First closes

Anyone willing to close the open discussions on the 14th? These have no been open for 7 days. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone create {{MRV top}} and {{MRV bottom}}, counterparts of {{DRV top}} and {{DRV bottom}}? I would appreciate that; thanks! --George Ho (talk) 04:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Done. Let me know if you have any issues. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I have made adjustments to reflect "Move review". I wonder if more adjustments should be made. --George Ho (talk) 06:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't closing a move review include moving the article if necessary? The page seems to indicate this. Should Perth, Western Australia be moved, or should the discussion be re-opened if this is not a good time to move it for some reason? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Transjordan Attack Move Review Comments

I have asked JHunterJ above to give his assessment of the Perth move debate: what were the major points on each side, which ones he thought were weak and why, which ones he thought were strong and why. I would ask if he could do the same for First Transjordan attack on Amman review. Neotarf (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I have already given my assessment of the debate. "See WP:PRECISION for the consensus to avoid unnecessary precision. Unanimous opposition to the new name after it made it to the backlog at WP:RM for why it was closed after more than a week of discussion." -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists

I have problems with this sentence "After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists". I know what is meant, but the sentence needs to be qualified. If a move has been made following policy, guidelines, and presidents against what was the large local consensus wanted for a page, then the muppets can come here, ignore policy, guidelines, and presidents, and in overwhelming numbers produce a consensus against the close. The sentence needs to be qualified to say a consensus based policy, guidelines, and presidents to give the closing admin here the same wriggle room as there is for the initial close.

Until such a qualification is added I could not support this becoming part of the WP:RM process. -- PBS (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I think your concern about converging muppets is overstated. Wikipedia:Consensus#Level_of_consensus provides policy backing in the case of a few associated editors who decide to assert something contrary to normal practice. Also, from my experience at DRV, it never happens that a group of different accounts are able to even nearly convincingly provide a show of consensus contradicting policy - every word they write further cements the impression that they don't understand the project. I don't think it needs to be qualified, but I certainly don't oppose better explanations.
If the muppets are aguing contrary to the policy cited in the close, then surely someone, even the closer, will introduce the policy to the discussion. This is allow the closer to assess the relative merits of the arguments.
I think it is important that "consensus", with qualifiers and caveats if you like, is paramount because the review process needs to be open to the possibility that a policy-as-written is flawed, or faulty, or narrow, or something. I also think that the review processes need to be more conservative than the processes they review, in terms of establishing a consensus to overturn. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with your statement "I also think that. the review processes need to be more conservative than the processes they review" but the current wording does not support that, and this is not the place to review policy that should be done on the talk pages of the policy. As to introducing policy, that does not mean that the muppets are going to change their opinion and may still demand that a close decision based on policy is overturned. Your argument about consensus is ignoring WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and the sentence The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever. As I said above I think that these points need to be made explicit, or this becomes a muppets charter. -- PBS (talk) 12:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Perth and moving forward

Ok, the MRV is closed and the appropriateness of the close has been assessed.

At this point it probably needs to be decided where the article should be, since there was more moving done post-closure of the RM.

I think we would hope that, was MRV in place, such moving would not have happened as a way to dispute the close, but rather (after of course attempting to discuss with the closer) requesting an MRV would have instead been an option.

So presuming that this is a special case in this way, and presuming that arbcomm will not comment on a content matter (by long standing general tradition), the final result needs to be determined.

I suppose that just implementing the close (ignoring all subsequent moves) is one option.

But as this is a special case, I think that we're probably all better off just starting a new RM. with the specific notice that the discussion of the first RM will be taken into account of the close of this new discussion, and that no reflection on the original closer is intended (let's let arbcomm do their job, and just focus on the matters at hand) - and therefore subsequent comments concerning the previous closer will be ignored, having no "weight" in the close of this new discussion. Along with this, jhj (and others who were part of the previous situations) should not be the closer(s) of the new RM discussion as his (and their) part in the previous RM is under arbcomm investigation.

I really don't see any other way around this.

This shouldn't be a precedent for the future, as, presumably, MRV will be in place, and as such this would (hopefully) be avoided in the future.

But for now, we really should get this (mess) clearly resolved.

I welcome others' thoughts on this. - jc37 16:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

We could wait until the ArbCom finishes with the wheel-warring case, to see if they offer any suggestions about how to proceed from here, or offer any opinions about the suitability of the move review process as a framework for resolving this type of situation. They might well decline to do so, of course. They might also offer an opinion on which of the page moves/reverts were legitimate and which were questionable, and we could work backward from there. If a new RM is the way forward, and after ArbCom is done with the case, I would probably try to publicize it as widely as possible, probably in the discussion pages of WikiProjects for countries and regions other than Scotland and Australia, in order to gather as wide a cross-section of opinions as possible. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
No need to wait for ArbCom,[1] although someone should let them know the move review has closed. A new requested move should be initiated, but I think it should come from the position that the Australian city is under the Perth heading. Otherwise what was the point of having the move review. AIRcorn (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

My preference in this would be twofold-- 1) allow the Arbcom case to run its course so that the post-RM behaviors can be fully vetted and dealt with as necessary. 2) since the first RM and MRV has been so tainted by the contentiousness over the close and subsequent MRV decision, that another RM be conducted as suggested above with the hope that all participants involved in the contentiousness surrounding this RM/MRV abstain from participating in anyway in the subsequent RM. --Mike Cline (talk) 01:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  • No, Strongly disagree. The purpose of the review process it to provide some finality to otherwise endless RM discussion/bickering/bitterness. You've closed the review as a Consensus to Endorse JHJ's close, so JHJ's close should stand, and you need to implement any action required. JHJ's close is the decision on what the conclusion of the RM discussion was, and there is no suggestion that the RM discussion itself was tainted in a way that requires arb-com input.
  • Running another RM with many individuals barred is a perverted bureaucratic solution not at all in keeping with how the project is meant to run. It would be unenforceable, and if enforcement were attempted, worse outcomes would be likely.
  • The arb-com case is an entirely different matter. Whether individuals used their privileges contrary to expectations is a question that may lead to warnings or sactions on individuals, it will not and must not lead to arb-com making a highly specific content/title declaration. If arb-com choose to interfere in a question of page title, wait for them to do so, but do not decide to do nothing just in case they might. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Just to note, I only suggested that certain individuals not close the discussion, not that they could not take part in it. - jc37 04:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
That's quite reasonable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Mike, I disagree that we need to wait for ArbCom here -- as I understand the case, they should not be speaking as to the propriety of the move, as the community has spoken through the Move Review stating that the original close-as-move was valid. Therefore, I have moved the pages as per that close. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think Elen made it pretty clear if it wasn't already that we didn't need to wait for Arbcom; this move review and its implementation are completely separate. Thanks for getting us out of this state where the review was closed but un-carried-out. I was thinking about doing it myself but I had weighed in on the review. Additionally, even if move review is "unofficial" or whatever, the point is that an extensive discussion that was adequately advertised took place. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 15:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Waiting for Arbcom

The ARBCOM case cant be ignored entirely, it is entirely appropriate to wait the outcome of the ARBCOM case rather than create further drama Gnangarra 03:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Arbcom does not, as it should not, get involved in questions that are strictly concerns on content, like this. The case is concerned with behaviours, such as whether certain people were wheel-warring. Certainly, editors named in the case would be well advised to not continue involvement, but nothing in the case limits Mike's responsibilities as the MVR closer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Mike as the closer has indicated that arbcom should run its course first[2]. Gnangarra 04:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, if that's his, the closer's, considered position, then that's what should happen. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Note: SarekOfVulcan has moved the article despite participating in the review. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Note: Completely irrelevant. If I had closed the review, that would be a valid objection. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
That is especially relevant and it was egregiously poor judgment on your part. You participated in the review, and after disagreeing with the closer's expressly stated preferred decision not to move the article until one of two circumstances are met, overrode it with your own preference. Your move is inconsistent with the closer's statements and directly flies in the face of any 'discretion' he does have. Further, you engaged in this admin conduct while similar admin conduct is being reviewed by the Committee. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Implementing the result of a community process is fairly explicitly not "similar conduct". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
You disagreed with an administrator's stated preference/decision, and imposed your own despite participating in the discussion - and effectively continued the line of warring; that amounts similar conduct. Your failure to see that is yet another illustration of your poor judgment here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
But SoV's action doesn't seem to disagree with Mike's close. Mike appeared to believe that we ought to wait for arbcom, but arbcom has made it pretty clear that is of course unnecessary. And no, it isn't similar to the behavior addressed by the Arbcom case; that case appears to mostly be about reverting/reinstating administrator actions without prior discussion, which is wheel warring. SoV reverted/reinstated with prior discussion. This is a very basic distinction. I suppose the "involved" element is there, but it seems like a side issue at the arbcom case and I think the fact that SoV didn't close but merely carried out is a mitigating factor here, to say the least. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Mike did read through the discussion (including the individual arbitrator's comment) and came up with the close that he did, as well as the decision on his own talk page not to move the article. That he further reiterated here how his close should be interpreted is a confirmation that it should not have been moved until ArbCom case was resolved and further discussion was complete (if opened in the meantime). I don't see this to be prior discussion either; I see that SoV has made a decision to change the very meaning of the close desired and intended by the closer because, by his own admission, he disagreed. That is not the way to do things, especially if you are a participant in the discussion which you believe should lead to that outcome. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Quite! Put it back please? Brendandh (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

We'd probably have to go through another RM at this point. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Brendandh, SarekOfVulcan did move the article although some of us had suggested waiting, but at least he did so in fulfillment of the move review and perhaps on the strength of arbitrator Elen of the Roads earlier expressing an opinion that it would not be a problem to do so (ie, to carry out a move at the conclusion of the move review process).[3] So he is probably in the clear from any ArbCom wrath; I'm not sure that would be true for a new re-revert, unless very carefully justified. The ArbCom case should wrap up in mid-July... can I reiterate my original suggestion to wait until then? If really considered urgent, I suppose you could ask for a temporary injunction at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Workshop regarding where the article should be located while the ArbCom case is pending. If a new RM takes place at some point, I would hope/intend that it should be very widely publicized in various country and region WikiProjects (not just Scotland and Australia) to gather a very wide spectrum of opinions. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree that at this point, this process did what it was intended to do. The decision was endorsed and that action was completed. So if any further move is to occur, it would need to start with a new WP:RM discussion. This discussion also pointed out something that we did not consider. That is if the close here makes a decision and then delays enforcement. This was an action that was not considered when the process was being developed. I'll raise this in the following discussion so that we can determine if that needs to be addressed in the process itself. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
If enforcement of a move review is delayed, it needs to be made clear by the closer how the enforcement will eventually be triggered in the not-too-distant future (some specific length of time elapses, some event, etc). Otherwise, you're left in "where do we go from here" limbo. In the case of this specific move review for Perth, there was a parallel ArbCom case, so we could propose to wait and see if the ArbCom case shed some light on the move itself. But that is a rare circumstance. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

new WP:RM already started

Brendandh has started a new requested-move survey, it is at Talk:Perth_(disambiguation)#Requested_move. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 04:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

"Syrian uprising" vs. "Syrian Civil War"

See Talk:Syrian uprising (2011–present).

Someone might want to start a move review for this: there was a contentious close where raw vote count went one way but the close went the other way. There were a few page moves reverted back and forth, attempts to restart a requested-move discussion, and so forth. The closing admin chose to take it to WP:AN/I rather than here, but someone else could still initiate a move review. As I mentioned there, the move-review process won't become tried-and-tested until it's tried and tested. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The spirit and intent of WP:RMCI

I was asked by User:Gnangarra on my talk page to explain how I came to the conclusion that the original Perth RM close was consistent with WP:RMCI. I chose to answer that here in a broader way in hope of informing the continued development of this Move Review process. I apologize for the delay, but I was chasing the aquatic predators of Pteronarcys californica for the last two days. The abundance of Pteronarcys californica in late June and early July can be a big distraction in Southwest Montana.

We can first ask ourselves why did we create a Move Review process? We created it because some editors have been and will continue to be dissatisfied with the results of specific Request for Move (RM) decisions. Why do we have a Request for Move process? Created in 2004, one must presume that the community wanted a structured process to deal with controversial page moves. Once RM was created (10/04) editors felt they should give Admins (and others) a set of RM closing instructions which were created a year later (10/05). What makes an RM controversial? Well it can be a whole lot of things, but for the most part controversial RMs are the result of a complex titling policy and supporting guidelines that contain collectively a lot of inconsistency and conflicts. When editors chose to selectively pick and choose which part of title policy should apply to their particular page move, RMs can become contests of wills between those favoring one interpretation over those favoring another. Commonname, Primarytopic, Disambiguation, MOS, etc., can all be interpreted and sources manipulated to suit any agenda. Whenever, this contest of wills we call RMs is close, someone must decide. That decision, regardless of the merits of the discussion, creates winners and losers. Until Move Review was created, the losers had only one recourse, hold another RM to see if they could manipulate their interpretation of policy better than the other side did in the previous RM or introduce some remarkable new information.

Now to RMCI. One must assume that it was created to guide RM closers in a way that at least generated some consistency in RM closings across the community. The following language in RMCI under the section Determining Consensus contains the real meat of the community expectation for RM closers:

Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their 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. 
Remember, the participants in any given discussion represent only a tiny fraction of the Wikipedia community whose consensus is reflected in the policy, guidelines and conventions to which all titles are to adhere. Thus, closers are expected to be familiar with such matters, so that they have the ability to make these assessments.

This language contains several elements (my interpretation):

  • preferences of the participants in a given discussion = Local consensus
  • but also by evaluating their 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. = What is the applicable policy?
  • Remember, the participants in any given discussion represent only a tiny fraction of the Wikipedia community whose consensus is reflected in the policy, guidelines and conventions to which all titles are to adhere = Policy trumps local consensus
  • Thus, closers are expected to be familiar with such matters, so that they have the ability to make these assessments = Closers should be able to interpret policy and assess the policy interpretations of others.

Thus it has always been my interpretation of this language that RM closers play a role in assessing the policy interpretations of others in RMs and that moves should not be closed in a manner that is inconsistent with titling policy, even if there is local consensus for the move. Unfortunately, the more controversial an RM is, the more difficult these assessments and decisions are and whatever the decision, the losers in the RM won’t be happy. Our complex and conflicting titling policies aggravates this situation alot.

So how does RMCI relate to Move Reviews? We’ve already said we don’t want Move Reviews to be a rehash of the RM. Another RM would do that just fine. So that leaves two situations—significant and relevant information was left out of the RM discussion or the Closer didn’t follow the instructions in RMCI. Other editors in the discussions above have said they don’t think RMCI should be the basis for Move Review decisions—it should be something else—maybe local consensus or what? Maybe we should allow RM closers to ignore Community consensus on policy and bend to local consensus. Count the votes, policy interpretations right or wrong carry no weight. We wouldn’t need Move Reviews if RMs were an up or down vote unless we had some Admins who couldn’t count. So until there is definitive guidance that replaces RMCI, its the language above that guides closers in closing RMs, and thus creates a measure by which Move Reviews can be decided.

So, to sum up and answer Gnangarra’s question, I believe that JhunterJ did just what the Determining Consensus section says, both in spirit and intent in closing the Perth RM. I won’t presume to get into his head about his specific decision making process, but his extensive explanations in the Move Review sustain my belief. If we want different rules for closers to play by so that local consensus in RM is the driving force, we should make that change, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Point of clarification:
  • "I believe that JhunterJ did just what the Determining Consensus section says, both in spirit and intent in closing the Perth RM."
When you say that, do you mean in closing the MRV, that you felt that as a result of weighing the comments of those who contributed to the MRV discussion? - jc37 20:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I would say yes, although this gets tricky to rehash. In the MRV, those endorsing the close made comments like this: That is JHunterJ's close as I could see this getting confusing with all the reverts. This should basically come down to whether he analysed the discussion and reached a reasonable conclusion. He referenced Primary Topic in closing and from the discussion that appears to favour WA. He also acknowledged the arguments regarding long-term significance and page hits. In my opinion the original close falls well within administrative discretion, and those opposing the close made comments like this I personally feel that 60-40 is sufficient (and agree entirely with AIRcorn above), and I note very few arguments in opposition to the move at the RM touched upon Wikipedia policy, but the status quo is sustainable, while having the Western Australian city as the primary topic seems to be untenable for a minority who are sizable enough to require consideration. In other words in the RM, the policy interpretation trumped local consensus and in the MRV, those endorsing the RM close said policy trumpes local consensus and those opposing relied only on local consensus (voting) arguments. Hope that helps some but unfortunately, these things are not and will not be black and white no matter how hard we try. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Wow, that's a great write-up, Mike Cline. We should find some way to capture that in the project page, or in a subpage (rather than just on the talk page). Without the me-specific or Perth-specific bits, naturally. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Since the Move Review is closed as endorse original conclusion, can you at least move Perth now? --George Ho (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry Mike that answers nothing except that you are just creating another super vote, what I asked was to explain how you closed the discussion at move review not once have you referred to anything that was raise nor the opinions of any person who participated. Gnangarra 23:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately you are looking for a silver bullet and I doubt you are going to find one in this situation. I am confused though about the comment not once have you referred to anything that was raise nor the opinions of any person who participated when in fact my comment immediately above cites the words of one endorser and one no consensus participant in the MRV. --Mike Cline (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
NO I'm looking at your first statement which is suppose to be a response to my request to clarify the reasonings of your closure you stated I believe that JhunterJ did just what the Determining Consensus section says, both in spirit and intent in closing the Perth RM. I won’t presume to get into his head about his specific decision making process, but his extensive explanations in the Move Review sustain my belief. If we want different rules for closers to play by so that local consensus in RM is the driving force, we should make that change, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon that is yet another supervote closure which got us here in the first place. Your response should be about the discussion what arguments were put forth and how it came to a consensus and what that consensus it has nothing to do with what you believe. Gnangarra 03:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
So because Admins have discretion, they can super vote? WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should be rewritten to have a note in it that if there are well-reasoned arguments for multiple possible primary topics then there IS NO primary topic. To me that is obvious. Quite dismayed by this, especially the inaccurate continued reference to "local consensus" when Perth, WA editors were voting both ways. The-Pope (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
The guideline already states that, sort of: "In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage and one of primary long-term significance. In such a case, consensus determines which article, if either, is the primary topic." This, together with "There is no single criterion for defining a primary topic" means that, according to the guideline, the closing admin should not single out a single criterion to define the primary topic, but only use the consensus achieved in the discussion if there's one. Unfortunately this part of the guideline is rarely taken into account when closing disputed discussions. Maybe we can propose that change to PRIMARYTOPIC so that this is made explicit? Diego (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
In this case, neither criterion was singled out. There was no conflict between the usage and long-term criteria, since both topics have long-term significance and neither has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Haven't you just agreed with the no consensus rather than move arguments? The-Pope (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Perth Move Review Comments

Unfortunately, this RM was clouded by some wheelwarring and the fact that the status of Perth as a Primary topic or not has been contentious for a long time. A no consensus close would have been just as satisfactory, but would not have satisfied those who favored the move. Move reviews are guided in part by whether or not the closer of the RM followed the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI. It was my opinion in this case that JHunter did that. The original close was questioned in part because of the rationale the closer provided. This is an area where RM closers need to take care. First there is absolutely no requirement to provide detailed rationale in an RM close (maybe there should be, but at present, there isn’t in RMCI). So when rationale is provided, the closer must be very clear as to basis of the decision that was made. When closing comments leave room for varying interpretations, they also create the potential for contention over the close. A second observation about the move review discussion is warranted, and I want everyone to clearly understand this is my opinion. I think the closer under review (this case JHunter) but whoever’s close is under review should limit themselves to one and only one statement in the move review. The closer, if they choose too, should explain their rationale for the RM close and then leave it to other editors to decide if that rationale and decision was consistent with WP:RMCI. The constant back and forth by the closer with others contributes little to the Move Review discussion. Third, for the Move Review process to become a viable and effective process, all of us that participate in it must ensure the discussions don’t become a rehash of the RM itself or an attack on the closer. First and foremost, Move Review discussions should focus on this question: Did the closer of the RM follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI in making the close decision? Mike Cline (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I have one question for you, in order to advance clarification of the Move Review process in the light of this first closure. When you talk of the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI as currently written, I largely interpret it as focusing in these two points:
  • Either determine whether there's consensus in the discussion or not, or relist it.
  • Required clean-up of the discussion and successful moves.
The question is, was this what you had in mind when determining compliance with the guideline by the closing admin, or was it something else? Diego (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
While I agree that JHJ may have gone a bit overboard in his quantity of essentially repetitive responses (and I'll gladly chalk it up to the "rehash of the RM", that you note), editors (including and especially the closer in question), should be able to respond to comments, in particular to clarify/explain. This is a consensual discussion, after all, not a "vote". - jc37 15:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
In my defense, many of the misstatements and unclear statements I was responding to were essentially repetitive, which is why the same clarifications and explanations were used in response. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Nod, as a suggestion for the future though, consider each time you repeat whether adding more text in response is a help. If the arguement is essentially the same, there's not a whole lot of point to constantly say the same thing in response. There's a difference between someone being unsure or confused (or even mistaken) about what may have occurred, and that someone having an entrenched difference of opinion about what occurred.
And note, I say this as someone who can have a tendency to be rather verbose myself : )
Anyway, I hope this helps. - jc37 15:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Diego - I think you characterize spirit and intent of RMCI correctly, but where I think there is misunderstanding is around what concensus really means in this opening statement: Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their 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. This statement gives great wieght to the interpretation and application of policy and naming conventions in titling discussions. All we all know that our titling policies are very fragmented, not consistent and very subject to wide interpretations. Thus when a closer is evaluating the discussion, there should always be serious consideration of what policies are being interpreted and are they being interpreted correctly, regardless of how many are for or against any given move. -- Mike Cline (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
JC37, as I said clearly above, my view on statements by closers is my personal opinion. A closer in a RM discussion is not an Editor, but a Judge. Judges should make their decisions, provide/defend their rationale once and move on. Let others decide whether or not the rationale/decision was a OK. When reviews become a contest of wills between the closer and participants in the review, then the decision under review gets obfuscated in a way that's not productive, and attention is diverted from the real purpose of the review. --Mike Cline (talk)
I don't recall saying that you weren't expressing an opinion?
Anyway, that aside, I strongly strongly disagree with ever calling a discussion closer a "judge". When closing, we assess consensus, both in the discussion in question, and the greater/braoder previous consensus and common practice in Wikipedia. We absolutely do not sit in judgement. Afaik, the closest thing we have to judges in Wikipedia are our arbitrators. (Though I suppose CUs could probably be considered close to that too.)
Regardless of what name/title we ascribe to a closer, it is our long standing policy that closers should be open to explaining their closes. And I would presume that that includes discussions at DRV (and therefore by extension) MRV. If anything more info from a closer helps the closer of the xRV to better understand the how and why of the close under discussion.
This is a new process, and everyone is still finding their feet. So there was probably more "re-arguing the RM" than should have been. And so it may have helped cause JHJ to be a bit more repetitive than we would hope a typical MRV would be. Though I will admit, we still see re-arguing the discussion" at DRV. So shrugs, it happens. Presumably a closer at DRV/MRV understands that and weighs the arguments appropriately.
Anyway, as you note about your comments, this is merely my opinion, though I'd like to think it is grounded in currently existing policies and guidelines. I'm happy to discuss this further with you though. - jc37 15:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


Mike Cline, much as I do not wish to extend this process any more, could you please explain how this review was closed as endorsing the original close under the terms of this process? I see roughly a 60/40 split against the original close. Is that being taken as no consensus? If it is, then why was 60/40 in the move review taken as having a consensus. There seems to be an inconsistency here.--SabreBD (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

An excellent question, I saw the move review discussion a little closer than 60/40 but that's irrelevant. I struggled with the decision, but kept going back to WP:RMCI and WP:MR, particularly this statement: In general, commenters should suggest they either want to Endorse the original close or want to Overturn the close - depending on whether (or not) they felt that the close reasonably interpreted consensus while keeping in mind the spirit of Wikipedia policy and precedent and the project goal, and also properly followed Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, and was within administrator discretion. It was my view that those endorsing the original close made their case with the above statement in mind very well, thus I sustained the original close. I struggle fundamentally with the statements in all of these dicussions--Its not a vote, but the votes are always tallied up and any decision contrary to the tally is questioned. Difficult to deal with, but I hope my actions and explanations are help forward along this nacent process. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Well thanks for the reply. Personally I cannot see any point on pursing this further, but I am afraid I am left deeply dissatisfied and rather alienated by the whole business. Not by the result, which frankly was never that important to me compared with the process. I have made several arguments which attempted to follow the relevant guidelines and have received no response from an admin. I wanted to avoid constantly repeating them as this just promotes acrimony, but it seems that this is the only way to get them noticed. I am pretty sure no one will care, but the conclusion I have to draw is that there is little point in participating in this kind of process as an admin can simply disregard arguments and a balance of opinion and impose the decision for which they have a preference.--SabreBD (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I had no preference for either decision when I clicked through to the move discussion from the RM backlog. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you JHunterJ for proving my point about repetition.--SabreBD (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I feel the same way as Sabrebd. Mike Cline, if WP:RMCI can be interpreted as allowing the admin to freely interpret all the existing policies and guidelines, then Move Review should offer editors the power to police and supervise the decisions taken in it -by re-assessing the whole discussion if needed- and not just a process of endorsing or rejecting compliance with the steps of bureaucratic process. Move decisions should not ultimately rely on one person interpreting policy; that's what the discussion is for, to gather and discuss the possible interpretations of policy from all interested editors, not leaving it in the hands of only one administrator. The other solution is to fix WP:RMCI so that the admin can 'not' exert a free interpretation of policy, but only that which was used in the discussion.
My view is that the closing admin should be allowed to assess the strength of policy, but only for those policies that have been deemed relevant by participants in the discussion, so that the admin's decision will be a true summary of the discussion so far. Otherwise the whole consensus-building process is reduced to the decision of a single person at a single step, which is contrary to WP:Consensus policy that dominates WP:RMCI. If the administrator thinks that some uncited policy is relevant and should be taken into account, he/she should cite it as a participant on equal foot with the rest of editors, not by exerting administration powers that require special procedure to be contested. Diego (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, why invite comments at all if the admin has carte blanche over the entire closure procedure.Neotarf (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
My understanding there was some issue about conflict of interest in this particular RM, but under the proposed the closure review process, that is not up for discussion. It is certainly a part of WP:RMCI. Neotarf (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Yes, this process seems to compound the problems more than resolve them. I wouldn't be comfortable offering my support for a proposed process with that effect which appears to be contrary to WP:Consensus policy, and places the entire decision into another sort of arbiter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Consensus is more than the percentage split. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
And imposing your own supervote is not consensus. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
And calling my different conclusion than yours a "supervote" is getting even older. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I, like the majority of others, are calling it like we see it - and the impression did not come about from the mere conclusion by itself. It is the process, which others have frankly explained to you many times for your benefit but clearly, you have not been listening. If an admin continues to engage in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and fails to acknowledge how that impression came about as a result of your closure by this point in time, perhaps that is an indication that such user is unfit to remain as an admin. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps if you see it differently than the review close, it's not that IDIDNTHEARTHAT, but rather IDISAGREEWITHWHATIAMHEARINGBECAUSEITSWRONG, and has nothing to do with my adminremainingship, but might be an indication that you should reevaluate your impressions in light of a better understanding of the guidelines in use. But you're not listening to the responses to your impressions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinion of what's right or wrong while acting as a particular participating at discussions; but not while acting as a closing admin, who is supposed to be as impartial as possible. In that role you're only allowed to assess whether arguments are "consistent with policy" or "not consistent with policy", and when both opposing sides are consistent with policy you can only declare "no consensus". But you have not been doing that; you've been using your own interpretation of how policy should be read and calling anything else "wrong". This is not being impartial, whether you like it or not. Diego (talk) 08:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
And when one side is more consistent with policy (guidelines in this case)? This isn't "my interpretation", whether you like it or not. If the way they're currently written is incorrect, they need to be updated (I've raise the matter several times on WT:D, but no new consensus has been formed.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
When the fact that "one side is more consistent with policy" is explicitly contended in the discussion itself by some editors using a different line of argumentation (that is also consistent with policy), if you agree with the first side you're simply ignoring the other valid argument in favor of your personal opinion, which is a no-no.
The problem with PRIMARYTOPIC as it stands now is not that it's incorrectly written, is that its consensus says one thing (several indicators should be assessed for determining primacy) and you're consistently applying it to mean another thing (that pageviews is the only indicator that matters in the discussion at hand). This misrepresents the previous global consensus, which is that editors should decide on which indicators are relevant at each situation; and that lacking that consensus for each particular case, there should be no primary topic.
Your consistent application of the guideline as "someone mentioned pageviews as supporting a primary topic; even though many people oppose pageviews as the definite criterion, LOCALCONSENSUS does not overrule global consensus, therefore the guideline supports having this article as primary topic" is a travesty of consensus building. If pageviews was the only metric approved by PRIMARYTOPIC then your argument would be correct; but since PRIMARYTOPIC cites many ways to support a topic as primary, and many were cited in the discussion, that you singled out only one of them in your close arguments is against the guideline, and against global consensus, because the other metrics were also supported by PRIMARYTOPIC.
Note that at this point I'm not referring only to the Perth discussion (which did take into account long term significance) but at your pattern at several closes of using mainly the pageviews statistic as the defining criterion for determining the primary topic. This is why people keep calling your closures WP:SUPERVOTEs, because you're not applying 'all' of the guideline, only the subset that you prefer. Diego (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't use pageviews as the definite criterion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I believe that your allegation is not correct. If there was a violation of WP:COI that is a valid reason to raise in discussions here. All guidelines are in play here as stated in the first paragraph on the project page. It is up to those participating the discussion raise any valid point, especially if it was also brought up in the closed discussion under review. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Disagree that RCMI should be first and foremost, just prominent. I think it should have been closed "no consensus to overturn, endorsed by default". Less satisfying, true, but more correct, and nearly just as final. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

    " After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists." "Consensus" is first and foremost. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

    That's what I did. A consensus among the contributors to the discussion and among the relevant guidelines and policies used. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
    The quote was from the guidance for closing a WP:Move review. It take it as meaning that Review closes are more conservative that RM closes. If a RM close can be rough, a consensus to overturn must be less than rough. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Since JHunterJ has stated that his closure was based on the arguments, and not just a supervote, maybe he would give his assessment of the debate, what were the major points on each side, which ones he thought were weak and why, which ones he thought were strong and why. Neotarf (talk) 21:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I would have liked to see more of that sort of thing in a move review. Someone else could have outlined the arguments; it wouldn't have to be JHunterJ. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think anyone else besides JHunterJ can tell us what was in the mind of JHunterJ in deciding this controversial RM. Since the question of a supervote has come up again and again, the fastest way for JHunterJ to put that argument to rest is to disclose his decison-making processes. Neotarf (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I have given my view so much that it has been seen as badgering. Which of my previous explanations about the application of the strongest points (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC's usage and long-term significance) can I clarify further. -- 23:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Neotarf—maybe we're talking about different things, then. My point was that an outline of the arguments raised and how much weight they were and should have been given would have been useful in a move review. Then we could see if the closure was problematic for missing something/etc. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
ErikHaugen, I think it's a matter of "what you see is what you get". My question was intentionally specific and I think it was answered specifically by the closing admin, to the best of his ability and perspective and good faith, to the point where he thinks others will consider it to be "badgering". Neotarf (talk) 08:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

If this has closed as "endorse original move" shouldn't the Perth articles be moved? Or is there a review of the move review in progress? AIRcorn (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

There is an ArbCom in progress about the wheel warring. They've made it clear there that the ArbCom is not going to weigh in on the proper arrangement of these articles, so I don't think that's an impediment. I'm not aware of any other related discussions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Special instructions in a close here

Clearly we now know that it is possible that a close may be with conditions or special instructions or concerns.

This raises several questions:

  1. Is closing with conditions and instructions a problem?
  2. Who 'enforces' those conditions or instructions if the closer does not take immediate action?
  3. Do we limit the options or allow the situation to dictate the actions needed?
  4. Do we need to clearly state that appeals of the decision here go back to WP:RM as a new request?

So I guess the question is do we need to add a bit more to the instructions or the closing instructions and if we do, what? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the problems really only stem from the fact that the closes in question predated this process.
Once this is in place, and everyone is aware of it, things will probably run fairly similar to DRV. - jc37 00:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
1. Yes. Conditions and instructions require follow up. The failure to follow up multiplies the problems.
2. In my opinion, the enforcer must be the closer. Enforcer-clerks are a possibility, but discussion participants must not play the role of enforcer. Enforcement always involves judgements of discretion.
3. This should be the responsibility of the closer. If the closer can't meet their responsibility, better to not close. Better to close as "no consensus", than to make an ambiguous or complicated close.
4. It depends on the nature of the appeal. If the appeal is that the review closer was involved, probably appeal on this talk page, or at WP:AN. If the appeal is that review close was an unreasonable close for any admin, then probably appear here at Wikipedia:Move review, as this is a review page, and new WP:RM discussions are about the facts, and are not about reviewing a process decision. If the appeal is that false or misleading information, or sockpuppetry, mislead the community, then I would say bring it Wikipedia:Move review. If the appeal is upheld, the matter should be sent back to WP:RM. if the appeal is on the basis of new or changed information, I think it should be first canvassed on the article talk page, and then to a fresh WP:RM discussion citing specifically the new or changed information.
  • I think that in general, the move review closer, on finding a consensus (not a local consensus inconsistent with any policy or guideline) should consider move-protecting the title, thus symbolically declaring (WP:WHEEL) that the page cannot again be moved without a discussion-based consensus. It should be recognised that many page moves have committed opposers who display an irrational sense of offence that the wrong decision has been made (i.e. Sayre's law applies to page moves), and that some degree of finality needs to be applied, even if artificially. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

How to promote awareness of "Move review"?

"Move review" is becoming slower at any minute now. How do we promote it? --George Ho (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

We don't.
Right now, it's in a probationary phase.
Be patient, as these things can take time.
Incidentally, there are days DRV doesn't have any noms, and it deals with multiple XfD processes. This just has RM. - jc37 02:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • How to promote, appropriately? I suggest that anyone voicing a complaint, or anyone acting with obvious dissatisfaction with a move decision, should be directed to Wikipedia:Move review. Making a nomination should be very easy, and always welcomed, subject to WP:AGF. The lack of nominations should then be an indicator of the smoothness and satisfication with the WP:RM processes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Note that there was a RM close discussion yesterday at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive757#Review of my closure of Talk:Syrian uprising (2011–present)#Requested move to Syrian Civil War title which was not taken here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I think that a solution to this problem is a move rule:

If a WP:RM discussion is closed as "no consensus", a fresh Move Discussion may not be resumed for at least two months (or if it is, it may not be acted upon for two months).

I this rule as consistent with the outcome, enforced with threat of Blocks for disruption by User:Bwilkins at Talk:Syrian_uprising_(2011–present)#Move_because_there_is_consensus and then more emphatically at Talk:Syrian_uprising_(2011–present)#Remark_concerning_closed_discussion_Move_because_there_is_consensus.
Also:

If a WP:RM discussion is closed as "consensus to something", a fresh Move Discussion may not be resumed for at least six months.

Two and six months are arbitrary choices, but they seem suitable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
It would probably depend on the topic. Something that had no consensus just because it was controversial might need a longer cooldown period before relisting; a topic with quickly changing circumstances might be need to be revisited earlier. Or perhaps we need a "Move Review Review", for those occasions when a Move Review is seen as a rubber stamp by an admin in support of a fellow admin to keep the plebes quiet. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Neotarf (talk) 07:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't mean this as a comment on the person who reviewed the RM, whose comments I respect and read closely, but is a comment on the conflict of interest issues inherent in the process itself. Neotarf (talk) 08:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Technical aspects, format and archives

  • There are a lot of empty daily log pages, so many that it looks silly.
  • I would prefer a dedicated subpage for each review, much in the style of MfD and AfD. This means that I watchlist each individual review individually.
  • Each subpage should be transcluded individually onto Wikipedia:Move review. This means, if I watchlist that page, I can see via watchlisting when a new page is added, or a closed page removed.
  • I think that archiving individual discussions by month would be most appropriate. A daily archive is obviously silly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Could someone briefly summarise where it's at?

Sorry, I've not had time to visit for a little while. This page is now huge, and it's difficult to get a sense of whether anything has been decided. Tony (talk) 00:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think the concept has been accepted. We have learned from the first nominations that the process needs to be clearer and those changes are being discussed. So it is useable, but refinements to the proposed guideline are happening. It will be nominated as an official guideline when the initial bugs are worked out. One unresolved issue is, should each discussion have a separate page rather then being part of a day page? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I would say that it has been tested, but not yet accepted. There are some wide gaping holes in the process that need to be resolved in a satisfying way, and it still needs feedback from the wider community to be accepted as a guideline. Diego (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
The concept has been accepted based on the RFC. What has not been accepted, or for that matter proposed as a formal guideline yet, is a specific project page with details. As you say, there are issues with the working draft and there are still ongoing discussions over parts of the process. At this time, I don't know when we will be ready to make a formal proposal. I guess that depends on when the pending changes have a consensus and we can get a few reviews completed after those changes. In the meantime, the process is there if anyone wants to use it. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I think their are some unresolved issues that I'd like to try and summarize when I get a bit of free time this evening or tommorow morning. Am now knee deep in real world work with a client. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
The single biggest issue that I am not sure that there is clarity on is whether or not WP:RMCI is the driving standard here and that MRV is about making a decision as to whether or not the RM closer followed the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI. Currently the MRV page states:
Commenting in a move review
In general, commenters should either Endorse the original close or seek to Overturn the close – depending on their analysis of whether the close reasonably interpreted consensus, while keeping in mind the spirit of Wikipedia policy, precedent and the project goal, whether the close properly followed Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, and whether it was within administrator discretion.
If the close is considered premature (such as if there was as yet No Consensus), or if significant relevant information was not considered during the discussion, a suggestion to Relist the discussion may also be chosen.
Remember that Move Review is not an opportunity to rehash, expand upon or first offer your opinion on the proper title of the page in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in the closing process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's analysis of whether the close of the discussion was reasonable or unreasonable based on the debate and applicable policy and guideline.
I believe RMCI as currently written is sufficient because it contains the right mix of consensus and policy/guideline interpretation. However, if there is another standard to hold RM closers to, we have to find a way to be very explicit about what that standard is. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Archiving

Any objections if I start archiving this page at say 60 days? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I was beginning to wonder when that would be brought up : )
No real opposition from me (though I've never been a fan of copy/paste archiving, it's become common practice in the community, so I've kinda shrugged and moved on : ) - jc37 21:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

RfC to see if there is broad support for RM closure reviews

There is a clear consensus for establishing a formal move closure review and there is rough consensus to adopt the proposed process. Of course the process can later be refined with further discussions. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 05:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The process for moving pages using Wikipedia:Requested move is one of the few processes that does not have a formal appeal or review process. The only true option is for an administrator to reverse the close of someone else, generally another administrator. That is basically prohibited by WP:WHEEL. The only other forum that might be appropriate is WP:DRV. However, from several brief discussions it is not clear that this type of discussion would be appropriate there or really work. So the suggestions have been to create a new process modeled on the existing review processes. This request is to find out two things:

  1. Should the proposal for a formal requested move closure review be implemented?
  2. If there is support to implement a proposal, should the proposal here be implemented?

If we move forward, at a minimum there still needs to be a process to actually nominate and list discussions for review. One open issue is where the discussion should be (on a consolidated page, on the talk page of the page or on a subpage for the page being moved. This would not include categories which are discussed at WP:DRV. And it is not limited to articles since templates are also commonly nominated. If there is consensus to support this process and move forward those issues can be resolved by consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Support a formal requested move closure review

  1. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  2. I have a lot of disagreements with some closures that may not fit the consensus. Unfortunately, without contacting another administrator or going to a proper discussion, I'm torn. I'm all for it. --George Ho (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  3. JHunterJ (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  4. Jenks24 (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  5. Support, on a new page, modelled on WP:DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  6. Yes, a proper process of review is desperately needed. NoeticaTea? 23:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  7. Diego (talk) 11:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  8. Mike Cline (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Fully on board with the need for an RM review process
  9. Helpful to have an agreed procedure for reviewing closures. Would suggest calling it Requested Moves Review (RMR) as simpler and clearer. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  10. Support - moves tend not to inspire enough passion to prompt people to follow/participate in the discussion till the very end, so it has been my impression (and I could be wrong) that move discussions tend to die out not because of lack of consensus but because people forget about it. So this would address that concern Jztinfinity (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  11. Yes, in principle, but not as proposed. Neotarf (talk) 04:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  12. In some form, certainly. Jafeluv (talk) 07:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose a formal requested move closure review

Support adopting the proposed requested move closure review process

  1. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  2. Right now; expansion comes later. --George Ho (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  3. JHunterJ (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  4. Jenks24 (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  5. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  6. Is there a need to vote twice? I assume people will be voting on the proposed procedure. If people like the idea of a review, but there were aspects of the proposed procedure they don't like, they can say that. It's possible people may just vote the once on the idea and move on without supporting the proposal because they may think they've already done so. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose adopting the proposed requested move closure review process

  1. WP:AN already serves as an adequate review mechanism for cases where there is a dispute over the propriety of a requested move closure. As there is nothing stopping anyone with new evidence from opening a new RM, and given the infrequency of review requests, I don't think a specialized venue for appeal is necessary. Monty845 20:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  2. The proposed process is poorly thought through, and was already hijacked at the outset by an editor who has an agenda concerning non-admin closures. That particular provision has not been discussed adequately. What does it mean, even? What happens if a non-admin closes an RM flagrantly against the current guidelines concerning such closures (before seven days have elapsed for example, or assuming a consensus that has not in fact been established)? Reversing that closure would reasonably be an option available to anyone, as at present. (Nothing in the present draft, or anywhere else I think, requires that only admins may do such a reversal: only that admins may review any closure, by an admin or a non-admin.) The ground would not be that the closer was a non-admin, but that the non-admin acted against the guidelines. Now, what do we think about any non-admin being able to game the system, by putting in place a kind of false status quo, requiring people to go to great lengths to overturn it – and effectively handing a decision to any admin (fallible like us all, and often partisan) to adopt that spurious but perhaps tempting new status quo, rather than overturn it? In that case it would be even harder to overturn a poor decision than it is now, since the decision would have been engineered to seem as if had been duly considered and applied twice, not merely once. Have these matters been worked through, anywhere? No rush to put this faulty draft in place. Let there be due process, and the sort of wide scrutiny that we have not seen before in issues of titling.
    ♫â™Ș? NoeticaTea? 23:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
    • We will deal with those concerns later, unless there are better proposals than this. If this format happens, then we can majorly restructure it another time. --George Ho (talk) 00:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Why the rush? Why start with something faulty, and plainly manipulated by the "usual suspects"? Time for real consultation, rather than yet again keeping control of titling matters within an active and ideologically committed inner circle – which is, paradoxically enough, what we see so far. NoeticaTea? 00:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Hi Noetica. I think the proposed process is fine, and that overdetailing the proposed process is a bigger problem. I have faith that editors in review mode will rise to the occasions. It only takes a few problematic NACs before a consensus emerges to ask the non-admin to stop it. A pair of non-admins revert-warring over a NAC? I don’t see such a problem persisting for very long. Both risk being blocked, without even looking at their preceding history. GAMING? At DRV, we are quick to discover gaming, and unsympathetic to GAMERS. I think this will be the same. Detailed legislation doesn’t solving GAMING tendencies. NB. Any “overturn” or “relist” authorised at a review will be authorised by a consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) I kind of agree with your points, Noetica. Firstly, I would say there is no problem with tweaking the process as we go (either while we are voting on it or further down the track if problems arise). The current practice for non-admin closures, as I have seen it, is basically a common sense approach; if the NAC is blatantly wrong then anyone can overturn it, but if it is just arguably incorrect then an admin should review it (note WP:RMCI states "All non-admin closures are subject to review by an admin; but if the conditions listed above are met, the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is not sufficient reason to reverse a closure.") I think you're also vastly overstating the problems that could arise from a NAC not being overturned in, say, 24 hours, but instead having to wait a week at closure review. To answer your question about working through, yes, it has been discussed above and I asked for input from editors who favour shall we say "stricter" enforcement of NACs (such as yourself), but no one felt like commenting. I'm more than happy to discuss the specific wording regarding NACs: how about we change the current sentence to something along the lines of "As per the closing instructions any NAC can be reviewed by an administrator. If an admin reviews the closure and either endorses or does not overturn the it, then it can be brought to closure review. However, you should clearly explain why the closure either was not appropriate for an admin to close or why the closure did not reflect the consensus of the discussion". Very wordy, but would that be the general feel that you think it should have? Jenks24 (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  3. Mike Cline (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC) I am uncomfortable with the current wording of the review process proposal for several reasons.
  • 1) It references two different sets of closing instructions. It should only reference RM closing instructions (which may be in conflict or inconsistent with the other set of instructions). If RM closing instructions need to reference the wider community closing instructions, that’s fine. You cannot hold a closer accountable for following instructions that are conflicting or not clearly in play.
  • 2) The RM closing instructions are heavily weighted toward naming conventions (a good thing) and policy interpretation/application (problematic with all the conflicts we have in WP:AT and supporting guidelines) and less toward consensus. We need to be absolutely sure that our RM closing instructions reflect what we expect from an RM closer.
  • 3) This wording in the review process Reviews are limited to cases where the close was in someway wrong, or something important was not properly considered. Particular cases where a close has not followed the Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions may be raised for review, 
 subordinates following RM closing instructions to a very subjective the close was in someway wrong. I would submit, that the only reason an RM close is “wrong” is that the closer did not follow the RM closing instructions.
  • 4) I would reword the outcome section as follows:
In general, discussion positions should be:
Endorse if the close was made according to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions
Overturn if the close was not made according to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions
Relist if the close was premature, or important information was missed, and additional discussion is needed.

It is the RM closing instructions that we need to tighten up and gain wide consensus on before we impose a review process on RM closers. Mike Cline (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but no. Yes, there is a problem with the closing instructions. These will be highlighted by a review process. Now the review process is not supposed to be a review of the RM closers, but of the RM closes. The few RM closers may well feel cornered by this, by hopefully we will all try hard to be nice to them. But we need the reviews, reviewing holistically, to illuminate WP:RM to the wider community. It's a cyclic thing. Your suggestion, to constain the reviews to the closing instructions, I fear would stop this review process from being as useful as it might. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Smokey - I think you misinterpret my comments a bit. I am not saying the current closing instructions are wrong (although they might be). What I was trying to say is that we should encompass all the criteria and thought processes for closing in the instructions and not add additional criteria and thought processes in the RM Review process (which may conflict with the instructions). Closers will not feel cornered by a review process if closing instructions are clear and reflect community expectations. They will feel cornered and frustrated by a review process if it allows reviews based on very subjective (the close was wrong) criteria inconsistent with closing instructions. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mike. I think I mostly understand you. I just re-read "Some big picture considerations" (above), and am comfortable that you know what you're talking about. I don't think the closing instructions are "wrong", although everything can be improved, but yes, I do think that many WP:RM participants probably don't know "the rules" of the WP:RM game. I think I'm coming from the direction that WP:RM review will give a voice to the disgruntled, and focus the discussion from the personal or repetative and into education. I fear that restrictive guidelines may restrict useful dialogue. I'd prefer the DRV model, where there are next to no instructions given to the participants. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I was going to say something about the process that you hit on. I think that closes will almost always be subjective to some point since it is the closers interpretation of the discussion and the !votes. So concentrating on the process and existing rules and not the closer is the correct way to address this. If a closer's decisions are not being reviewed, then they are probably not closing difficult discussions. If anything, the review process should firm up how to deal with contentious discussions so that future closes need fewer reviews. If this becomes part of the process, there will be a lot of discussion on the early nominations as everyone feels there way through the process. Hopefully we will all learn from those discussions and adjust the guidance based on what we have learned. This could be as simple as adjusting our closing directions. It could also lead to a review of other policies and guidelines. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Mike, maybe if I try to keep this is simpler terms: In general, if you want a better review, as in boarder, more honest, less biased, better respected with the passage of time, then don't contrain the reviewers with closed boundary rules on how to review. I read your suggestions as being able to be read as limiting the reviewers to matters defined within Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions (RMCI). Down the track, this could lead to the reviews being rejected because they were at fault due to a fault in RMCI. I also see it confusing casual visitors to the process. I agree with pointing reviewers to RMCI by all means, but don't imply that reviewers are limited by the content of RMCI. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what reviewers should use beyond the limitations of the content of RMCI. If the admin closed the RM in accordance with RMCI, then the close should stand. How would leaving it unlimited improvement the slapdash "review" process we have now, where individual move requesters go admin-shopping and go running to those admins whenever an RM is closed in a way they don't like, or simply resubmit any closed RM the same day it was last closed? -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
If there is problem about the second move consensus in Talk:All That Jazz (film), then please say it. --George Ho (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Didn't I? I have a hard time believing the extended conversations on my talk page in which I gave you advice on how to approach moves and problems, which you then ignored, didn't cover this more than sufficiently. Let's move forward, please. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
JHunterJ,
Reviewers should of course be familiar with HMCI, and failures to follow RMCI should, and surely will, draw first criticism. However, in reviews, unexpected things come from left field. There will surely be things raised that are not clearly covered by RMCI. “If the RM close (leave the closer out of it) is in accordance with RMCI, then the close should stand” is not OK. The close should stand unless there is a consensus to change it. RMCI is not our fundamental rule. The most important thing is: “Did the page end up where it should”. This is regardless of the rules. If it didn’t, why not? Did the closer err? Did RMCI fail us? Does the policy/guideline as written fail to describe practice? The second most important thing is whether due process was followed and seen to be followed. See Meatball:FairProcess. Some people pay little regard to this, while others get terribly upset.
As I said before, at DRV, there is long and successful experience in dealing with thngs like admin shopping, trying out the same argument again, and attempts to GAME. We don’t need rules to deal with things, and indeed, attempting to write such rules is counter-productive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
That helps, thanks. I still have concerns where a majority of a small sample at one move discussion may staunchly disagree with an established guideline and wish that it said things differently. In that case, there may appear to be a local consensus for the move, but IMO the policy/guideline didn't fail to describe the broader practice and the move should not be undone (although changes to the guideline might be proposed). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
It's funny that you raise that point, because I'm concerned with the case where the guideline is unclear, several valid points have been raised in talk discussing its various interpretations and shortcomings, and the closing admin decides that the guideline is to be interpreted in a specific way, opts for one side of the debate and ignores all the points claiming that the guideline is ambiguous or doesn't provide valid advice. If several independent editors are providing logical reasons for a meaning of the guideline, and this meaning is not directly against the reasons why the guideline was draw up or the way it's most commonly used by precedent, the admin should not supervote and settle the matter but just relist the discussion or close it to the situation before the contested move, and allow for further consensus to be worked on over time. In other words: unless the meaning of the guideline is set in stone through ample precedent, the admin shouldn't be overriding local consensus, nor seting up a fake consensus for a discussion where there is none. Diego (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't know why that's funny. If it's funny because you're thinking of a move I closed, then we disagree about the validity of the points, the shortcomings of the guidelines, the ignoring of any of the points (some points may have been discounted as counter to policy/guidelines/the project, but not ignored), and the lack of ample precedent. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS should normally be overridden in favor of the larger consensus, because "consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Oppose, as written. This is trying to fix something that is not broke. First identify what specifically is not working with the present system, then try to fix it. Otherwise this just adds verbiage to an already bloated policy. Neotarf (talk) 05:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Shall I made changes right now based on Mike Cline's proposal? Mike, would you please move your "vote" to this section? It seems that new proposals for the proposed process must be posted here. --George Ho (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Since it is changed into reflecting WP:RMCI, there are some concerns over the WP:RMCI. Should it be discussed at its talk page right now? --George Ho (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inviting review of my closure

I just closed the MRV for Big at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2012 June 18. I'd like to invite anyone to review my close. Some examples: I could have written a few sentences as a rationale, but that didn't appear to be what had happened for the first three MRVs; would people prefer a rationale in most cases? B2C and Diego were in the midst of a discussion when I closed, but I felt they were talking past each other a little and very unlikely to convince the other to change his opinion; even so, would it have been better to let it peter out? I closed as "no consensus to overturn", but does anyone feel relisting the MRV would have been better? And, finally, do you think my decision was correct? Happy to answer any questions or for anything else to be critiqued/discussed, whether it be my close or how the process worked for this particular case. Jenks24 (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Your close is correct, and a "no consensus" is likely the only one that could be taken for the review discussion. I think it would be helpful that every "no consensus" close would point out whether there's no consensus because nobody is making compelling arguments with respect to policy and guidelines, or rather because there were several compelling policy-based arguments that nevertheles are conflicting. This would signal participants if their line of reasoning merits being pursued further, or if they need a different approach.
I will comment on what this close means for the nascent Move review process. I see as a deep flaw that decisions are endorsed by default. Several editors (see Perth review and the comments on its close here and here), have expressed our concerns that this gives free rein for administrators to supervote. In a disputed situation, a closure is seen as a bounding decision that reflects the community consensus and thus is to be enforced over all editors. If the move review is again disputed to the point of no consensus that the close was correct, as this one was, having the default action to endorse the closure means that the administrator's is the only decision that stays. Given that this decision will bound all other editors, this is too much power for a single person to hold unchecked, which runs against the Consensus policy.
Where the situation is so disputed that a rough consensus cannot be achieved, there should be no long-term commitment to any decision, in special not one taken by a single person (even if that person is an administrator). This opens the possibility that the discussion will extend over time without a clear closure, but I don't see that as a bad thing; the discussion will go on, allowing the possibility that a different consensus will evolve given enough time. This is preferred to a false closure where the final decision does not reflect a real consensus among editors. The review process goal should be to stop edit warring and WP:WHEEL, but not to prevent futher discussion. Diego (talk) 10:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
"I think it would be helpful that every 'no consensus' close would point out whether there's no consensus because nobody is making compelling arguments with respect to policy and guidelines, or rather because there were several compelling policy-based arguments that nevertheles are conflicting." – Thanks, this a really good point. Interesting point on what "no consensus" at MRV defaults to. I think I get the points you are making, but I'm a bit confused about what you think should happen if a MRV end as no consensus? Are you saying that we should instead default to what the status quo before the RM was initiated? Jenks24 (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is a sensible solution. The status quo reflected previous existing consensus and no new consensus has evolved through discussion, so the situation before the first disputed move is the one that should be recovered in most cases. Diego (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, I understand your position now. At first thought, I disagree. DRV does works in this way and I haven't seen it ever perpetuate edit warring or wheel warring and nor does it mean that supervoting is allowed/endorsed. Maybe we should start a new section about this to see what others think? Jenks24 (talk) 11:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, please keep writing rationales. The one in your RfA was good too. If nothing else, it makes it look like you actually read the RM and avoids the appearance of supervote. The format "moved, per WP:WTF" isn't particularly helpful, IMHO. Neither do people want a dissertation; I've noticed that most people just post their !vote and move on, without revisiting the discussion, but for the few who do follow up, it does help move the discussion forward. It would be nice to encourage that in the closing guidelines as well, but some admins probably wouldn't be able to write them, so it would be a hard thing to mandate. Neotarf (talk) 11:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Taken on board, thanks. Jenks24 (talk) 10:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Move reviews more complicated than DRV

While I believe a Move Review process is a good idea, I do think we’ve underestimated the potential complexity. An admin’s decision at AfD is essentially a simple binary one—delete or don’t delete. At DRV, that decision can be reviewed as “Did the admin assess the AfD discussion properly and make the appropriate decision?” If yes, then no action is required. If no, the article in question is either deleted or restored (and/or another AfD is conducted, article is userfied, etc.). Relatively simple.

However at RM, the consequences of a move decision are more complex, and reversing a move decision can be equally complex. At MRV, we’ve already said that we don’t want to rehash the RM, but instead we want to evaluate the RM decision made by the closing admin. We’ve essentially stated that there are two reasons to conduct a Move Review—the RM closing Admin did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI or there is significant new information that should be evaluated at RM. So when an MRV is initiated, the opening statement of the MRV ought to be along the lines of: RM closer [Admin Bob] failed to follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because of [reasons stated here] orThe RM should be relisted because of [enter significant new information here]. Here’s where MRV gets tricky and where we must take care not to make MRV a rehash of the RM. What are the appropriate responses to these questions?

  • Endorse close: (the Admin followed the spirit and intent of RMCI in closing the RM)
  • Oppose close: (the Admin did not follow the spirit and intent of RMCI in closing the RM)
  • Relist: (Additional information warrants relisting)
  • Don’t relist: (Additional information doesn’t warrant relisting)

What’s obviously missing from the list above are statements like: Endorse no consensus. Why? Because that’s an RM decision, not an MRV decision. The minute we start using MRV to change the RM decision to something else, we’ve turned MRV into another RM.

MRV Options

This now becomes even trickier because depending on the nature of the close, the consequences of the MRV decision can drive a variety of actions and responsibilities. Above all, I think the title changes should be decided at RM, not MRV because to do so requires a rehash of the RM. So here’s a quick table to run through what some of the options might be to keep title decisions at RM while still conducting MRV:

MRV Decision RM Closers Decision Article Title Action at RM Close (By RM Closer) Article Title Action at MRV Close (by MRV closer) Status of RM at MRV Close
1. Endorse Close Not Moved Not Moved No Action Required Closed
2. Endorse Close Move to new title Moved to New Title No Action Required Closed
3. Oppose Close Not Moved Not Moved Option 1: (If RM consensus is unclear or significantly divided) Reopen and relist RM
Option 2: (If Consensus to move to a new title is clear) Move title to new title and close RM		 Open or Closed as necessary
4. Oppose Close Move to new title Moved to New Title Move title back to pre-RM title, reopen and relist RM if appropriate Closed or Open and relisted as appropriate
5. Relist Not Moved Not Moved Reopen and relist RM Open
6. Relist Move to new title Moved to new title Move title to pre-RM title and reopen and relist RM Open
7. Don't Relist Not moved or moved Not Moved or Moved No Action Required Closed

I am confident that there are probably other options that I haven’t thought of, but such a decision matrix would make MRV closing a bit clearer and simpler. The MRV closer would merely have to assess the positions on Endorse/Oppose close and/or Relist/Don’t relist. It would also put a reasonable burden on an editor initiating an MRV to explain why they thought the RM closing admin did not follow the spirit and intent of RMCI and/or why new information should result in a relist. There is a burden on us to ensure we are comfortable with RMCI, but merely disliking or disagreeing with the RM close should not be a valid rationale for an MRV.

There is one distinct difference between deletion and RM. RMs can be opened any time, so that editors who dislike a title or a previous RM decision can always open another RM. Nothing in our guidelines prevents that.

--Mike Cline (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Is it intentional that when the review closer says "oppose close" after a move request that was closed as "not moved", the closer of the review shouldn't move the article, or was that a typo on your part, Mike? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I numbered the options for ease of discussion. So if I understand your question it is about Option #3? If the RM closer closes the RM as not moved, then nothing has changed with the article title. However the MRV finds fault with the close, so the MRV closer reopens the RM and relists it. I don't think the table has the MRV closer moving an article that was closed as not moved. (At least that's the way I wrote #3. If we are talking about a different option, I am confused. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I was talking about #3. I don't think the table has the MRV closer moving an article that was closed as not moved—Right; I was asking if that was a typo. It sounds like it wasn't. I think #3 should indicate that the move review closer ought to move the page. Otherwise what is the difference between #3 and #5? I think move review discussions ought to be able to result in a move. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I think there is a distinction between #3 and #5, that being that #5 doesn't impune the RM closer, it merely recognizing that additional RM discussion with new information is prudent. Those of us who close RMs on a regular basis actually do this on our own. If someone asks me to reopen a closed RM for further discussion, I do it. As for #3, your suggestion that MRV ought to result in moves if a no move RM decision is opposed brings us into the realm of rehashing the RM. The requested title in an RM is not always the title are article is ultimately moved to. Many RMs result in a lot of jockying around different names. If a MRV closer must now reopen the RM and then make an RM closing decision to a new title the only discussion that can guide that is the RM discussion. Why? Because the MRV discussion was about the original close, not the RM discussion. Title changes should be based on RM discussions, not MRV discussions. That's why I wrote this in this manner. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
your suggestion that MRV ought to result in moves if a no move RM decision is opposed brings us into the realm of rehashing the RM—No more than #4 does? I appreciate the difficulties sometimes in figuring out the right title to move to, but I think that is kind of a side-issue here. If there is some doubt, the action can be to overturn the close and re-list. I think move review, for it to be relevant, needs to be able to lead to some kind of action when appropriate, like DRV. If an RM was closed as "not moved" or "no consensus", and this was found to be bogus in a move review, then the outcome of the move review ought to be to move the page. If not, why would anyone bother with it in response to "not moved" RMs? Why not just open a new RM, where there is some hope of action? For those who want the article moved, the best-case outcome of the move review is a relist anyway, so why not skip the move review? There is no upside. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I think I said somewhere above that this is tricky stuff. If the result of an MRV decision that is an Oppose Close on a No Move decision is always that the MRV closer moves the title to a new title, then we have created a set of untenable incentives. 1) any editor that dislikes the No Move decision because they want the title moved is now incentivized to open a Move Review regardless of merit. There is always the probability that they can discredit the RM closer sufficiently to guarantee an Oppose Close decision and thus guarantee they get their new title. If they don't win, they lose nothing, if they win, they get their new title. 2) Merits of the previous RM discussion are irrelevant, because the MRV requester merely has to discredit the RM closer sufficiently to generate an Oppose Close decision, with no downside if they fail. I firmly believe that actual title decisions should be the purview of RM, not MRV. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Sure—the result of #3 can't always be to move; sorry I made it sound like that's what I thought. I think you're overthinking this a bit. All I'm saying is that moving the page has to be a potential outcome of move review for it to be useful in any case where the RM was closed as "not moved". Can you see my point here? Perhaps the table can't be quite as simple and prescriptive as we'd like. If an RM is closed as "not moved" and it is brought for review, and in the review it is determined that the closer blew it and it should have been closed as "moved to some page", then the move review closer should go ahead and move it there. I'm not saying it isn't "tricky" or that it's always straightforward, but I think we have to allow for this kind of outcome. If the rules or whatever of move review say the page is never moved to the new title after a close of "not moved", then why would anyone ever bring such a move here? Why not just relist and skip the useless step? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I see having the MRV closer make a move after an Oppose Close decision on a Not Moved RM decision is viable under one circumstance--the move to the new title was unequivocally called for in the original RM discussion. It can't be based on new discussion (actually lobbying by the editors who disliked the no move decision) in the MRV. Once the MRV becomes merely an opportunity to rehash to original RM, it serves no useful purpose and just puts Admins is terrible positions. We have RMCI as a set of expectations for RM closers. MRV should be primarily about holding RM closers accountable for those standards. RM is designed to change article titles. In an ideal WP world, MRV would never be required because all closers would comply with the spirit and intent of RMCI. I wonder if those editors who see MRV as a way to get a second shot at their pet title agendas would be happy if all RM closers actually complied with the spirit and intent of RMCI? I'll think about how I might integrate this into the table. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good; thanks! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Those of us who close RMs on a regular basis actually do this on our own. If someone asks me to reopen a closed RM for further discussion, I do it. (--Mike Cline) I think this should be part of WP:RMCI. If someone wants to bring a new argument after the close, it means that the discussion hasn't finished yet and the administrator should usually be expected to relist it when asked. Diego (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


But no remedy for a closing admin with conflict of interest or who introduces new information in the close without any opportunity for discussion. Neotarf (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Which close are you refering to: RM or MRV? If RM, then I think that an Admin having a conflict of interest or who introduces new information in the close without any opportunity for discussion is most likely making a close that fails to live up to the spirit and intent of RMCI. If MRV, what you fear--conflict of interest or who introduces new information in the close without any opportunity for discussion--occurs, we've probably allow MRVs to become merely a rehash of the RM for those disappointed with original RM result. This idea (the table) is designed to remove the opportunity for rehashing the RM at MRV. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
RM, but judging by the first 4 MRVs, you're only going to need the first two items in the table. The subject was brought up in two of them but not addressed by the admin closing the MRV. Neotarf (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I strongly suspect that's the result of flying by the seat of our pants here at the beginning. We are learning as we go, thus my suggestions. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Four samples is not enough to know how future decisions are going to wind up. Having a full list of possible outcomes helps focus the discussion on possible specific outcomes. This has been a problem with some of the early discussions since it was hard to relate your position to the desired outcome. The reasons presented here seem to be a significant improvement to the minimalist first past options. But as Mike said, we are improving the process as we learn from the early nominations. Nothing is perfect in the beginning. Windows 1 anyone? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but as long as it's the watchers watching the watchers, I will continue to be cynical, but don't let me harsh on your mellow. Anything that promotes discussion is valuable. This came across my watchlist today, a small blast from the past: RFC-Article title decision practice. As a new user looking for advice to title my first article, I found it to be, along with the titling policy, categorically insane. But now that I have participated in a few RMs and discussions, I find it an interesting and NPOV way to categorize titling policy choices. Neotarf (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
As the author of that categorically insane RFC, I appreciate that you now find it interesting. Our titling policy and practice is infinitely more complex than deletion. It's tough practice to make heads or tails of. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a tweak on the table - I'd put it in chronological order of what happens: RM close, RM action, MRV close, MRV action. Just makes more sense to me... Dohn joe (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I plan on moving this table to the project page since there seems to be consensus to support it and replace the current text that explains expressing your opinion on the actual close. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I oppose this. While it's not necessarily a bad table, I don't like the idea that it will potentially suggest that these are the ONLY options. admin discretion and IAR obviously should apply as appropriate. As well as consensus is not a vote. - jc37 17:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Jc37, what would those other options be? We can certainly include them! --Mike Cline (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
That isn't the point. Every close should be treated on a case-by-case basis. No chart is going to give all the possible options. they are simply too varied.
For one thing, the chart deals only with one article move. It is not uncommon for an RM to include several articles. Especially when dealing with a specific topic, or also when dealing with the "primary topic"/dab page question. And not always will a close be completed endorsed or overturned. Sometimes parts and pieces may be.
I understand you're trying to make things easier for closers (and this wouldn't be a bad essay), but to place this as a guideline would just create a ton of IAR situations which would bring more drama than if we just follow existing consensus policy. - jc37 16:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
JC, I am not sure where you are heading here. RM is the place for deciding titles. MRV is the discussion for determining whether or not the RM closer followed the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI in closing the RM discussion when an editor believes the RM closer didn't. By your words above, I suspect you believe MRV will be a discussion that is an opportunity to rehash the RM and those that dislike the original close can argue for a new result. I think its clear that the consensus in the MRV process discussions todate don't favor rehashing the RM in the MRV. As such, I really don't think there are any more serious options or combinations of options that an MRV closer could have. They range from do nothing, move a title back to the original, maybe move to a new title or relist/reopen the RM. The table is designed to put MRV in the proper perspective. Absent such perspective, MRV is very likely to divolve into just a repeat of the RM which is not what it is designed to do. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
You misunderstand. Commenters at MRV are not limited to merely endorse and overturn, for one thing. For another, a "group nom" means that commenters may endorse one or more parts, and possible overturn other parts. And that's a simple example. In practice these can get fairly complex. And as this is MRV, we're rather likely to see the complex ones here.
And finally, Wikipedia does not have set rules. These things should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, just like DRV. - jc37 20:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Others need to weigh-in on this. Is MRV as rehash of the RM as JC37's desires seem to suggest or is it an evaluation of an RM closer's close? --Mike Cline (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
You're apparently still not understanding. At DRV, commenters are to look at the comments at an XfD discussion, and look them over as part of assessing whether a close was a good close, followed process, etc. They're not to be adding to those comments with more of their own. DRV is not XFD2.
Same here. Commenters are to look at the RM discussion when determining if the close was appropriate and within process. And in cases of group noms, they may assess that part of a close was appropriate, and part not.
And that's just one example.
We should not be procriptive and/or attempt to arbitrarily stop the commenters and the subsequent closer from assessing the previous discussion appropriately - on a case-by case basis, following the consensual process. - jc37 16:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Not a rehash of the RM. An evaluation of the close. A subsequent RM is the place for the rehash of the RM, if one is needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


Suggested new text in support of MRV Options

Vegas - When you move it, consider rewording the section commenting in move review.
Current text: ==== Commenting in a move review ====
In general, commenters should either Endorse the original close or seek to Overturn the close – depending on their analysis of whether the close reasonably interpreted consensus, while keeping in mind the spirit of Wikipedia policy, precedent and the project goal, whether the close properly followed Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, and whether it was within administrator discretion.
If the close is considered premature (such as if there was as yet No Consensus), or if significant relevant information was not considered during the discussion, a suggestion to Relist the discussion may also be chosen.
Remember that Move Review is not an opportunity to rehash, expand upon or first offer your opinion on the proper title of the page in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in the closing process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's analysis of whether the close of the discussion was reasonable or unreasonable based on the debate and applicable policy and guideline.
Suggested new text: ====Initiating move reviews====
Editors desiring to initiate a move review should follow the steps listed below. In the reason parameter, editors should limit their requests to one or both of the following reasons:
  • [Closer] did not follow the sprit and intent of WP:RMCI because [explain rationale here] in closing this requested move.
  • [Closer] was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the RM: [identify information here] and the RM should be reopened and relisted.
==== Commenting in a move review ====
In general, commenters should either Endorse close, endorsing the original close or Oppose close, opposing the close along with their rationale. Rationale should be based on an analysis of whether the closer properly followed Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, whether it was within administrator discretion and reasonably interpreted consensus in the discussion, while keeping in mind the spirit of Wikipedia policy, precedent and project goal.
If the close is considered premature because of on-going discussion or if significant relevant information was not considered during the discussion, commenters should suggest Relist with their rationale.
Remember that Move Review is not an opportunity to rehash, expand upon or first offer your opinion on the proper title of the page in question, that is entirely within the purview of the WP:RM discussion. It is an opportunity to correct errors in the closing process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's analysis of whether the close of the discussion was reasonable or unreasonable based on the debate and applicable policy and guideline.
===Closing reviews===
A nominated page should remain on Move Review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine what consensus exists in the Move Review discussion, close the Move Review discussion and take the appropriate action at the RM discussion and the article title. (See table below for typical options) Move review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest MRV log page, if the closing administrator thinks that consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.
[Insert Options table here]]
End of suggested new text
Vegas, please feel free to wordsmith as required.

-- Mike Cline (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

My approval is not needed to make changes. I will say that most of the latest changes seem to have community support since they have not meet been met with resistance. But continued wordsmithing of changes seems to indicate general support. As to your first suggestion, I think that section needs to mention consensus, since in the end, that is key. While this may be in WP:RMCI, it deserves a mention here. As to the second, I can see some wording chnages if we add your proposed table. I think the table really helps clarify what the options are for those commenting in a review. I would rather see that happen before we try a wording change in this section. But that is just my opinion. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Blank logs?

What's up with this process? I've not seen any activity there anymore after Perth. What's going on? --George Ho (talk) 06:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there activity going on that's missing from the logs? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Nothing's missing. No reports on closures, so... can it function like WP:non-free content review or WP:media copyright questions? --George Ho (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I second that. I don't see the point of having per-day pages if the process has such low activity. It's a waste to have bots doing all this work for no good. Perhaps the old, empty per-day pages should be deleted? — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Jc37 boldy opposed my changes by reverting everything back to normal. Nevertheless, we'll wait for one year then? I hate to see this potential become the NFCR. --George Ho (talk) 00:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
A year trial is fine.
This page is part of an arbcom case, and apparently is supposed to be more publicised.
So I have little doubt we'll be dealing with backlogs here soon enough : ) - jc37 01:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Not really - the only reason for this process would be to check if the closer followed procedure, and as procedure is that he can close as he likes there will never be an overturn, so why bother? Agathoclea (talk) 08:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Rampant rehashing

What do you all think about limiting participation in move reviews to editors who did not participate in the original (or related) RM? Obviously, the move review will likely be started by someone opposed to the outcome - and that's fine. After that, though, what good does it do to have all (or any) of the original !supporters and !opposers come here and repeat their arguments? Or if a blanket prohibition is too strong, how about limiting RM participants to commenting rather than !voting? I just don't see how we can reliably get disinterested views on the propriety of a move itself when we let admitted partisans have a !vote. I would suggest that we permit statements by the opener of the move review and the closer of the RM, and then turn it over to the uninvolved crowd. Maybe even have a template to structure it that way:

Statement by move review opener

  • I think the RM was wrong because....

Statement by RM closer

  • My close was based upon the following WP policies....

Survey of uninvolved editors

  • Endorse. This was clearly permitted....
  • Overturn. The closer obviously overstepped his bounds....

Comments by RM participants

  • I think the close was wrong because I voted the other way....
  • I think the close was right because that's how I voted....

Any comments? Dohn joe (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that saying someone can not express their option is a good idea. But any wording that makes it clearer that this is not a new vote on the move is welcome. I would have no objection to an uninvolved editor striking out comments that are re-arguing the close as opposed to raising the proper issues for this forum. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
No, this is a terrible idea. Separating things like this makes productive conversation difficult at best. Not allowing involved people to participate silences the voices most familiar with the situation. AniMate 21:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I concur AniMate's comments. Even prior participants may be more analytical on arguments than uninvolved ones, no offense. Nevertheless, everybody is free to join and to say; prohibiting involved would be against "what Wikipedia is not". --George Ho (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I largely agree. What about simply identifying which editors participated in the RM - or asking each commenter to identify themselves (as most people in the Perth MRV did, but only TDL has done here)? (To see what that would look like, I added notes to the applicable comments.) I think it's valuable for an evaluating closer to know which editors have already weighed in on the content side of the dispute. Not that they can't have valid comments here, but I think it's helpful context in the discussion. Dohn joe (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think John Doe's concern is valid, but the solution is not to disallow or discourage RM participants to participate in the MRV. The real solution is a careful phrasing of the MRV request that enjoins participants in the MRV to contribute a proper response. I allude to this above. If the nom says, Admin Bob failed to follow the spirit of WP:RMCI in closing the RM because ....; the the proper response is to either endorse or oppose the close. However, if the nom says, Admin Bob didn't close the RM with the title I wanted thus the close was a mistake, then participants are free to argue for or against the new title--thus as John Doe laments--rehashing the RM. MRV has got to be about evaluating the RM closing admin's decision, not deciding an article title. If it becomes the later, it won't matter who participates or doesn't. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing a review

This is the first time i have come across this system and i must say i hope it is the last because the entire thing seems flawed in practice. In a current review several editors have voted to overturn a decision stating something that the closing admin has categorically stated was not what happened. Where is the benefit of a system where a small number of editors unhappy with the outcome (because they back the alternative view)are able to comment on them being unhappy about the decision taken and then editors who have not been involved nor have any obligation on reading through the whole actual debate, possibly simply read peoples summaries and go along and agree with the interpretation some of those involved editors have? Also the people on this review are busy rewriting the rules, seeming to think that it must always be deemed no consensus if its so split with arguments on each side, basically taking away the right for closing admins to properly way up the debate and try to resolve a dispute after half a dozen RMs have already failed. Where do you review a review? And when is the review of this reviewing process? BritishWatcher (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

To add to my previous comment. What appears to also be happening is not a review of if the decision was right or wrong, but a review of the closing admins description and wording about the close. Despite attempting to set the record straight votes continue to be added under the inaccurate assumptions that the admin has tried to reassure people on. I find it shocking that people can spend weeks presenting a detailed case, then when one option is accepted by the admin, all that work can be overturned by a far smaller number of editors. So dozens voted in the RM with lots of detailed discussions, yet potentially a dozen have the power to completely overturn it all which will result in locking an article in the place for another couple of months. Makes little sense to me. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that the Move Review process is exactly the same as the Deletion Review process, right? SilverserenC 22:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the whole page almost functions as DRV rather than non-free content review; still awaiting one year. --George Ho (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Thats entirely irrelevant to the complete joke of a "review" that is taking place. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Perception is everything. If the reason for the close is problematic, the admin can argue all they want, but the close is the close as perceived by others. Do you really believe that all of the other review processes were perfect out of the box? We are still learning here how to better nominate closes for reviews. Editors are still learning how to participate in the process. If you have suggestions on how to improve the process, please offer the specifics and they will be considered. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Well if any of the previous ones have been as big a mess as the current one some form of changes are needed for sure. If the admin was right or wrong to close the RM is being overshadowed entirely by some of the things being put by people. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Mentality of this process

After reading comments on "Ivory Coast", I expect die-down activity and some analytical comments. However, I never expected that comments would go too far beyond limits of rationalization. Title vs. title isn't that fun in "Move review" anymore; now it has downgraded itself into which is best titled for readers. Look, I'm too tired to vote anymore, but I can say whatever I want to say. Meanwhile, I can make arbitrary breaks. --George Ho (talk) 08:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The entire "review" is an utter sham, its worse than a Kangaroo court. People are making endless assumptions and even accusations about the closing admin. Its worse than a witch hunt and the closing admin has explained in detail some of the points these people continue to make are NOT true. How on earth is this fair, and if this is the sort of savagery that closing a controversial RM will result in, why will anyone bother in future? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Well that's a bit dramatic. Unfortunately, Beeblebrox made some statements in the close, and henceforth on his talk page, that left a lot open to interpretation. Particularly, stating *twice* that a no-consensus close was unacceptable. I AGF about his actions, but it has taken a while for his explanations to catch up, and most editors won't/can't read 6 different messages to put together a coherent picture. I really don't think it's savagery at all, just complex communication.--KarlB (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Voting process

I have put "under discussion" under the Instructions section because we have comments running amock, and "endorse or overturn" turn doesn't work too well for me. Right now I hate voting in MVR anymore, and reviewing on renaming request discussions is not intriguing as reviewing on article content and topic notability. If we are reviewing on discussions, then we would also review a mere name of an article, not an article content itself. What are policies that conflict each other? --George Ho (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

That's why I support moving Mike's proposed table above into the instructions. Should help to clarify what stating a position here means. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Ivory Coast MRV - bad business

Without debating the merits for or against the Ivory Coast RM close, this MRV discussion highlights a serious concern about the MRV process if we continue to allow MRV to merely be a rehash of the RM and an endless tit for tat debate between the winners and losers (more on that in a bit) and the closer of the RM. As long as contentious RMs like Ivory Coast are treated like and responded to essentially as competitions between opposing view points (anecdotally this kind thinking), the losers will always be willing to take a shot at rehashing the RM at MRV. Very little of the MRV discussion has anything to do with whether or not the RM closer followed the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI in his close. Most of discussion was debate over the validity of sources, view statistics and ghits. That’s the purview of RM, not MRV (or least in my opinion should be that way). Closing such an MRV will be a no win situation for the MRV closer, because 1) if all the rehash of the RM is ignored, the closer will be accused of not listening to the discussion, 2) if the closer upholds the close, the closer will be accused of super-voting because all original RM losers will weigh-in on the MRV to offset any editor who endorsed the original and make a claim of no-consensus to endorse in the MRV, and 3) if the closer overturns the RM close based on the rehash, they are merely bowing to the pressure of the RM rehash and the original RM losers are now the RM winners. I strongly disagree with those editors who say MRV is just like DRV, it isn’t and this particular MRV is a poster child for that belief. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Do we need to make a stronger mention to disregard re-arguing the positions in the close in the instructions here for closing? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Now that the Ivory Coast review is over I can tell you I feel like it accomplished exactly nothing besides increasing the acrimony surrounding this subject. In my opinion what was needed was more administrative involvement. At least half the discussion was not a review of my close but a re-argument of the original RM. Other participants pointed this out but as they were already in entrenched positions they did not listen to each other. A previously uninvolved admin might have been able to introduce some sanity. I'm not sure simply changing the instructions will help much as it is clear that many of the users involved here either did not read them or deliberately ignored them. I realize this is a very new forum, as such it might be good to make sure more users and espescially admins know it exists in the first place. I was entirely unaware of it until this RM was brought here. I discussed this situation with several people at Wikimania and, with the exception of Mike, not one of them had ever heard of this. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed changes to this process

I am deeply unhappy with the situation that is taking place on the Ivory Coast "review", i believe the whole review is deeply flawed and should be nullified considering the huge problems, some of which ive mentioned in my posts above and on the page itself. However i would like to propose a few things i feel would make this whole process better and avoid such a thing happening again. Whilst no system is perfect some of these might help (will talk it through as a sort of time line) ...

  • A RM is closed by the closing Admin who states their reasons for the decision they have made.
  • After the close people are able to discuss the RM close on the article talkpage and the closing admin is free to respond to try and answer their questions if they want.
  • After 48 hours (but no longer than one week) if someone wishes to challenge the RM they must..
    • Create a new section on the article talk page formally saying they wish to challenge the RM close with a statement summarising their reasons (several paragraphs at most).
    • Inform the closing Admin on their talk page that the formal challenge has been made.
  • There is then another 48 hour period, during which:
    • Those that support a review agree with the challenger, there must be at least 3 people agreeing with the challenger for the a review to take place. They are able to discuss and form a statement they believe sums up the situation to justify the review (several paragraphs at most). If no agreement is reached the original challengers statement is used.
    • The admin is able to prepare a detailed statement of why they closed the RM in the way they did with any relevant information they deem necessary.
    • Those that support the closing Admins actions can use this time to make a joint statement of their own explaining why they feel the close was right. (several paragraphs at most and if no agreement is reached no statement is used).
  • After the 48 hours is up the Move review is opened by either the challenger or the closing admin but only becomes "active" when both the Admin and Challenger statements are put on the page. (if within 24 hours one has not done so the challengers statement is copied from the page or the admins RM closing summary is copied from the article talkpage).
  • The Move Review page is laid out in the following format
    • Closing admins statement
    • Challenger statement
    • Joint statement in support of the Admins close (if one exists)
    • Section for editors who did NOT take part in the RM. Each editor is able to make a statement including stating if they support Overturning or Endorsing the outcome(several paragraphs at most). The closing admin is the only person who is allowed to issue a response to the persons statement in this section, if the closing admin wishes to clarify or answer a question asked.
    • Section for editors who did take part in the RM to make a statement (several paragraphs at most) of their views on the close (but without the formal endorse/overturn). The closing admin is the only person who is allowed to issue a response to the persons statement in this section, if the closing admin wishes to clarify or answer a question asked.
    • General discussion section where anyone can debate about the close and if the right or wrong decision was made.
  • For the closing admins decision to be overruled there must be a clear majority of editors that were uninvolved in the RM supporting it being overturned after several days. If uninvolved editors are fairly split after one week has passed it is closed as no consensus and the admin's decision stands. If there is a clear majority of uninvolved editors after several days endorsing the decision the Move review is closed with the Admin's actions validated.
  • There should then be a period of at least one month before the next Requested Move is tried.

I feel that sort of structure would at least prevent the situation we are facing with the review on Ivory coast which is clearly the most controversial one handled in recent weeks from the small number of previous MRs i have looked through. It may seem a bit formal, but this undermining of admins decisions should be exceptional not standard. If people are unhappy with a change they should usually wait awhile and try another RM, only challenging the RM closure in serious cases. Just my suggestions anyway, but i do feel the issues on votes by those who took part in the RM, and also the admin not being given a clear chance to fully explain their decision must be addressed in the future. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Welll thoughtout, but probably a bit too structured to impose at this stage of process development. Hopefully, the change in instructions, if followed will help prevent a repeat of Ivory Coast. Assuming that the community believes the basic RM process is functioning OK, our real focus needs to be on making sure we are comfortable with WP:RMCI. Also, I think we should be brutally honest with ourselves in that much of the contention associated with title changes is directly attributable to flaws in WP:AT and related guidelines. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Non-admin closures: proposed wording

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Preliminaries

I [Noetica] have watched the development of the page from a distance, and I still have reservations about the coverage of non-admin closures. There was some inconclusive discussion above at #Non admin; and I voiced my concerns at #Oppose adopting the proposed requested move closure review process.

I apologise to Jenks for not answering his thoughtful response to my concerns; my attention was diverted to other matters. And frankly, I have been disappointed at the lack of circumspection in the initial phases of the page's development, when an editor was able to "stake a claim" with regard to non-admin closures without discussing it first. This can be seen as a push to normalise such closures, where in fact closure by admin has long been the norm. I am deeply concerned about such political manipulation in the development of policy, guidelines, and procedures. It has already been the subject of a recent ArbCom case. We need to be more suspicious and more wary; an assumption of good faith is all very well, but it is a defeasible assumption. Much about choice of titles is hotly contested, and present provisions are clearly not consensual. In this climate and in this area, it is even more important than usual to safeguard established procedures, which strongly favour admins as suitably unbiased closers of RMs. As things are going, non-admin closures will get almost the same standing as admin closures. Is this a desired outcome?

There is no explicit allowance on the page for summary reversions of non-admin moves that fail to meet the tight requirements in the present closing instructions. These were well discussed before being introduced. Among the specific requirements that must be met:

  • The closer has not participated in the discussion, nor recently participated in similar or related discussions.
  • The consensus or lack of consensus is clear after a full listing period (seven days).

Mike Cline has expressed concern above: "If we create an RM review process it must be in sync with the closing instructions which unfortunately many editors participating in RMs are probably unaware of." It seems that we are now drifting away from those instructions. They include this reminder:

All non-admin closures are subject to review by an admin; but if the conditions listed above are met, the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is not sufficient reason to reverse a closure.

But that does not preclude a non-admin reversing a non-admin closure if the conditions are not met. I propose that we maintain that implicit allowance, and indeed make it explicit. As a safeguard against abuses of procedure.

Proposed wording

As I write, this is the wording on the page that concerns non-admin closures:

Similarly, do not request a move review simply because the closer was not an admin.

[This, and all wording, is changing very rapidly without discussion here. That is a cause for concern by itself.]

I propose a supplement, which I underline:

Similarly, do not request a move review simply because the closer was not an admin. Any editor may reverse a non-admin closure that fails to meet the special requirements set out in the closing instructions, and any further action regarding the RM must be performed by an admin.

This gives equal power to all parties in any discussion, and works against "gaming" by either side in RM discussions.

I can happily support formal adoption of the page if this provision is introduced, or one with the same effect in maintaining controls on non-admin closures. If not, I put on record my strong disapproval of the page, and of the way it has been developed so far.

NoeticaTea? 01:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm pretty much in agreement with Noetica's proposal. I want to note especially that admins are held to a higher standard when it comes to conflict of interest. The flip side is natural: that they are more vulnerable to criticism on the basis of the "involvement" clause at WP:ADMIN. This makes good calls on RMs more likely. Tony (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Seems reasonable. Non-admin closures are not inherently problematic, but some that I've been involved with were; being able to revert them and call for an admin to step in seems only reasonable, if anyone feels that the close actually didn't meet the conditions. Dicklyon (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • To clarify: Oppose. The above sentiments I agree with, but they are a matter for the rules pages for Page Moves, and this page should not itself speak to such details. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I give reasons, and I post only when I have something to say that I judge to be of high importance. If non-admin closures are "an unimportant distraction" (as you claim without argument, against the testimony of one who has tracked these things with care), then by all means remove all mention of them from the page. Do that, or address the issue head-on, as I propose. If you want consensus, about the worst thing you could do is dismiss a carefully articulated concern as unimportant; especially if the development issues in question, and the editor about whom I have raised a concern, have already been the subject of findings by ArbCom. â˜ș♫â™Ș
NoeticaTea? 04:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. I see WP:CREEP, and I failed to appreciate the importance of you concern. What do you think of my statements on NACs far above? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
If you are worried about instruction creep, why allow any half-baked mention of non-admin closures on the page? That, by its vagueness and motherhoodness, can be manipulated.
You fail to appreciate the importance of my concern? That failure is beyond my control. But I nevertheless raise the matter as the only stumbling block with the page in its present state, for me. You write above: "I see no issue here with regard to NACs. Any close may be reviewed for its correctness" (and the rest). So you failed to see then, too. I have said what I think, in answer to your position. If I have not persuaded you, or if you do not respect another opinion from a deeply interested editor who brings an issue to the table (even if you cannot share his worry about the page), then again: that is beyond my control. I respect your right not to see. Let's consider what others might have to say, now.
NoeticaTea? 04:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I assume, perhaps hastily, that any action may be reverted once. If a page move, or RM discussion revert is disagreed with, then bring it to review. An admin reverting a NAC is special in that it doesn't require a review, even if non-admins were previously reverting. I personally don't think much else needs codification. Reviewers will recognise frivolous nominations. However, I do not oppose your suggestion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
On further reflection, I do oppose the insertion of the above underlined text. It is writing closure rules into this page. This page is about a review process, it is not the rules page for WP:RM discussions or pages moves or NACs. The underlined words, which I agree with, belong instead somewhere at WP:RMCI. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Why fix something that is not broke? There was initial agreement about the need for some review mechanism for RMs, but no one ever identified exactly what the problem was, and the discussion moved rapidly into left field. I agree with SmokeyJoe there is no need for changes to non-admin closings. In practice, most have not been controversial, and the ones that have have quickly been reverted by non-admin editor until opportunity as been given for a proper discussion. There was also a recent (non-controversial) non-admin closing by Jenks24, which led to his non-admin status being rectified. The system is working as is, why change it to something that might not work and might take a huge effort to find enough consensus to change back. Neotarf (talk) 05:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Are you saying that we don't need a move review guideline? Or that there is a version of the draft that is "not broken"? Most of it is not about non-admin closures, but if we're likely to adopt something about reviews, then I agree with Noetica that we should be careful what it says about non-admin closures. Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
There have been some controversial moves lately and IMHO there is a lot wrong with the process. Or perhaps it's not the process itself that is flawed, but the inherent human component of it. Of course, if you want to get to the bottom of it, you would have to address individual actions, and perhaps make some individuals uncomfortable, then try to write into policy something that is by nature not amenable to policy declarations; I understand why many might be reluctant to do that. But the problem is not with non-admin moves. While I cringe at the thought of adding yet more verbiage to an already bloated policy, and Noetica's exact wording may not be ideal, I would support it, as it codifies practices that are already working. Neotarf (talk) 06:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, the single massive problem with WP:RM is the lack of review. In everything, you should be clear (ie record) about you assumptions, you should give it a go, you should record what happen, you should review, and then start the cycle again, refining the assumptions. It is a little frustrating to see the long missing review process delayed. Some things may be half baked, but better half baked than to have false assumptions written in stone. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion yet again, Smokey. We can now clearly discern what you see as a problem, and what you don't. Earlier you wrote (00:26, 21 May; here I underline): "Why the rush? Why the delay? Do you think us inflexible? I see no signs of a controlling inner circle." Do I think you (in particular) inflexible? My fear is hardly allayed, when I raise an issue of concern to several of us and you continue to dismiss it because for you it does not loom large. You now write: "Some things may be half baked, but better half baked than to have false assumptions written in stone." And I answer, as others have suggested when there was a push to proceed with adopting the page without considering all aspects, that nothing is "written in stone". We get it as right as we can now, and review it later. So once again: leave what was in place for non-admin closures, and do not treat them here at all; or listen to all concerns, and address them head-on. You want to clear a backlog? Then don't waste admin time to review and reverse clearly faulty non-admin closures that are made to game to system. Explicitly allow anyone to make a reversal in such a case, and then only if further action is called for. If an editor reverses a non-admin closure because of a procedural failure, that in itself is the clearest evidence that there was a procedural failure; because a non-admin closer is only entitled to close when there is very clear consensus.
We have both said what we think. Can we now leave the podium and wait for others to comment?
NoeticaTea? 08:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, my opinion is that we should find a middle ground between "any NAC can be reversed by an editor" and "NACs can only be reversed by an admin". I think the real answer is hard to be codified because it basically boils down, IMO, to "use common sense". There are some times when a NAC is clearly inappropriate, but there are other cases where the it is debatable – I would prefer that these debatable ones not simply be reverted if someone else disagrees. For example, just because it was not listed for the full seven days is not always a reason to overturn a NAC – I made several early NACs and I have seen other appropriate NACs that were not up for seven days; however, some are clearly wrong and should be overturned by anyone. Some other areas where the water is muddy: what constitutes "clear consensus", whether certain discussions are "similar" or "related", what constitutes "contentious debate", etc. Sometimes this is blindingly obvious, sometimes less so. Basically, my point is that the closing guidelines are deliberately a little vague on this because editors are expected to exercise common sense and the instructions at this process should reflect that. Finally, why not add something about actually discussing with the closer? When I was making NACs I always reversed any of my closures when a good faith objection was made, and I don't think I would be the only one with that attitude. Much better to have a discussion than blindly revert. Jenks24 (talk) 08:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Smokey, "Lack of review", yes, that's a no-brainer. No one can predict what will come up, but the feedback loop to deal with it is missing. But the criteria for bringing something to review seems too restrictive. No one wants to rehash a subject that isn't going to find a clear consensus, but why limit the discussion to what is in the preserved discussion? Why should the qualities of the closer not also be up for scrutiny, for example, whether they are uninvolved enough to do the close? I have also found it extremely frustrating when the person closing the RM gives no reasons for a decision other than "I considered all the policies", or incorrectly identifies me as "agreeing with" when I disagreed or did not participate in a discussion. That's another example of where the review process is breaking down. It would be more helpful to know how the closer views the arguments and why one seems stronger than another, particularly if there is not a clear consensus. This propels the discussion forward, instead of just frustrating people who may become convinced their arguments were purposely ignored. And by "half-baked" I think Smokey means there are grey areas in the process. I would prefer to have a poorly-defined review process in place than to have none at all because a consensus could not be reached over how many whistles and bells it should have. Put the process in place, then let common sense find the best way to use it. Neotarf (talk) 10:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It was one sentence. I removed it for a couple reasons: My understanding is that common practice about non-admin closures is that any non-admin closure is subject to admin oversight, and also, the prohibition about commenting on the close, not the closer, should cover that well enough as well. Just as we're not casting aspersions on an admin whose close may be under review here, neither should we cast aspersions about a non-admin. While I agree with SJ that this is somewhat tangentory to this proposed process, I think it was a fair point that the sentence as it was may have been suggesting something semantically which is not necessarily common practice. So anyway, as I said, I've removed it. Though of course I welcome further discussion on this. - jc37 12:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MRV Instruction set changed

Based on discussions in many of the above sections, I have restructured the instruction set for Move Review, breaking it down into three basics sections--Initating the review, Commenting in the review and Closing the Review. These instructions are designed to help everyone keep MRV focused on its real purpose and not just allowing it to become a rehash of the RM. There are two ideal outcomes here. 1) that all RM closers understand and follow WP:RMCI and no RM close ever needs to be overturned. 2) that focus on WP:RMCI will result in a set of closing instructions that reflect wide community concensus on how we want RMs closed and that RM closers will abide by that consensus. --Mike Cline (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Siggested change: "Any comments which re-argue the requested move as opposed to discussing issues with the close itself will be indented and struck." Alternate idea would be to move them to the talk page as is done at RFA. This might have helped slow down such actions at the Ivory Coast review. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the motivation is correct, but my personal preference would to not react that way yet to that type of RM re-argument. 1) This instruction set in its current form did not exist when the Ivory Coast RM MRV started. 2) We've haven't had and I suspect we won't have alot of MRV discussions. Especially if RM closers know that if they don't take care with the RM close, they will be here telling us why. 3) I think arbitrarily striking out other editors' comments is problematic. Who is the judge and who makes that call? No I think all comments are welcome and we just need to reinforce the expected input during the discussion when editors begin to stray. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Having the page split with discussions underneath where people vote and state their view would keep things a lot clearer and if the discussion does stray into more of an RM it is less problematic and out of the way of the primary business. When its such a contentious move it is rather difficult to avoid references to if the close was right or wrong, without partially restating things that would belong on the RM. I know i did on a number of occasions but both sides do and its not fair if one side is making claims and points if the other side cannot reply, and those facts are relevant to if the close was right or not because that is in part what the conclusion of the close is based on.
The biggest problem was not the discussions, but the fact quite a few editors voted in a way stating something about the closing admins justification for the close that Beeblebrox had denied. I do think a full statement by the closing admin should be put at the top of the page so they can explain in detail why they did what they did. Rather than the challenger being able to set the tone of the debate and taking people down a certain line which was repeated regularly in the comments. It was more about the words used by the closing admin to summarise the close, rather than what actually happened. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Action at WP:ANI concerning an irregular move proposal

Just a quick notification, colleagues: I have initiated an action at WP:ANI, concerning an unadvertised move proposal for Men's rights – a highly controversial article that had already been through a failed RM. Many will consider it quite irregular. But we'll see, right? The question for this move review process, which I raised at Talk:Men's rights, is whether and how it might deal with such a move – if it does eventuate.
NoeticaTea? 13:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record, no move has actually occurred at this time. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
For the record also, KillerChihuahua did in fact later execute that move.
NoeticaTea? 10:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Bringing some discipline into MRV discussions

As suggested on the Tenedos MRV, it now seems like a good time to bring some more discipline into the MRV discussion process. The primary problem it seems, is that editors who are passionate about the move (one way or the other) cannot avoid rehashing the rationale for the move, instead of discussing whether or not the closer followed the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI in making the close. So the question remains, how can we reduce the rehashing in a way that does not stifle the overall MRV discussion. Here's my suggestion (borrowed in part from others).

  • Template the discussion into two sections: Involved and Uninvolved editors.
  • Create a template notice that can be placed at the top of the discussion at the begining of the MRV and inserted anywhere/anytime in the discussion to strongly remind participants not to rehash the RM per se. Using a template in this way would ensure uniform admonishment for all participants and eliminate the potential for one off admonishments to be taken as personal attacks. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Something like this:

--Mike Cline (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Can this be applied to an already initiated Move Review? Would it be possible to start from the beginning? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
We first need to get consensus from those of us who have been sheparding this MRV process through its infancy. We are learning good lessons from all the MRVs so far and hopefully we can apply those lessons to future MRVs. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
If I were an admin, I would take some good lesson from the Bozcaada MR: When you see a very correct MR just close it; no need to wait for lengthy -and at times unproductive- discussions...
  • I recommend asking participants to keep their comments together at their own first point, and to not engage in threaded discussions. I think this is what's done at RfCs and ArbCom, and I think it works to some degree. It lessens the feeling that every response needs a response. Threaded conversations, should go on the talk page (and there should be a dedicated page per discussion, not a section of a log page). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • A sheep's perspective to the shepherds. One thing that I think would have helped the Island formerly known as Tenedos discussion in terms of clarity and coherence in Move Request would have been this: the admin who closes opens up a new section on the talk page for the article, posts their reasoning (even just copy and pasted) once it goes to Move Review. That way the participants in that discussion have a clear place to discuss minute details about the close, ask questions about the guidelines and how to apply them, maybe even come to some consensus or compromise, etc,, and this area can stay relatively cleaner. It would require nothing more than a link to that space on the move review page and a community norm that people commenting here read what is being said and follow the points being made there. Do with this suggestion as you will. AbstractIllusions (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
You mean, if I clearly understand the suggestion is that this is done after another editor initiates a Move Review? --Mike Cline (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. Step 1: Editor proposes move for Article X, Step 2: Admin closes, Step 3: editor initiates a Move Review, Step 4: Move Review discusses whether move was by spirit and guidelines. Step 5: Admin opens up space for discussion in wake of decision on Article X talk page. I don't think the admin would need to stay engaged on the page, that is up to him/her, just thought creating such a clear space could be a positive move. The separation is not of course segregation of ideas, but the creation of a space where people focused on reaching consensus based on the evidence (a necessarily messy process) for Article X can discuss and where people focused on Admin following spirit and guidelines of close provisions can discuss. At worst, a record of the points discussed is contained on the appropriate page (the Article X talk page) for future editors to read and at best the distinct spheres mutually inform each other in a productive manner leading to a positive outcome. Once again, just a little insight, won't hurt my feelings if it is ignored or attacked. AbstractIllusions (talk) 23:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Another problem with the instructions

The instructions currently say to post the notice on the talk page for the closed disucssion. However in the case of a multipage move, this can skip several pages that may have drawn editors to the discussion. So all editors that were notified of the move are not notified of the review discussion. So we probably should change the directions to include each talk page that was listed in a multipage move. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure that the RM bot is removing the links from the other pages. I had been under the impression that it was, but if not, then no further action is needed until the review is resolved - unless they had been otherwise removed. Apteva (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Important new RFC at WT:TITLE

Editors may be interested in a new RFC that has just started at WT:TITLE (not to be confused with an earlier RFC, which it appears to make redundant):

This RFC affects the standing of WP:RM as the established central resource for dealing with controversial moves; it will certainly also have complex implications for this new move review process.

NoeticaTea? 10:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Closed. No change. Apteva (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Template

Could someone take a look at Template:Mrv2? It seems to be generating two extra braces }} at the end of the first line (try using it and you will see them in the page preview):

Foo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM)}}

These lines might have two extra braces?
:{{MRV links|{{{page10}}}|rm_page={{#if:{{{rm_page10|}}}|{{{rm_page10}}}|#default={{TALKPAGENAME:{{{page10}}}}}#{{{rm_section10}}}}}}}}}}}
{{{reason|}}}

--Apteva (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

This part has been fixed. Apteva (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Also could someone please take a look at Wikipedia:Move review/New day - I think it is missing mention of the talk pagename, and I am not sure why the sig says " ~~<noinclude></noinclude>~~"

I think the space before the first tilda should be removed, and the noinclude in the middle removed. The space makes the sig look like this: 

Apteva (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
The space has been removed, but what about the noinclude? All I can see is that someone was clicking on insert noinclude all over the place: "<noin<includeonly></includeonly>clude>" Apteva (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Outcome of this procedure

Months after full support, as it appears, this procedure resulted too many "decision endorsed" closures. It resulted too many or some re-requested moves. I wonder if there is another procedure to handle closures of original discussions. --George Ho (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Not to be too snarky, but just because you don't like the outcomes doesn't mean the process isn't working. older ≠ wiser 13:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
George, it would seem to me that the number of Move Reviews and the resultant outcomes illustrate just the opposite conclusion from what you contend. We want RM closers to follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI. If they do that, they are doing what the community expects from an RM closer. Although many of the few MRVs to-date have been messy, I am confident they have brought significant attention to WP:RMCI and the need for RM closers to follow those instructions. The ideal situation would be that the community didn’t ever need to overturn an RM close, because RM closers are abiding by the communities instructions. If for some reason we want to change MRV to be a rehash of the RM, then we need a wholesale modification to the instructions. I don’t recommend that, because it would just give license to RM supporters or opponents to ignore the RM result if they dislike it and reopen the discussion at MRV. I think to-date, the current MRV is proving to very successful. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I have been quietly watching and believe that the points that George makes have some value. If the close here is that the spirit of the guideline was followed how can you also basically say the discussions were rehashing the original arguments? In many cases the challenge is that the close did not correctly weight some arguments. So the discussion points need to be discussed. At this point, I'm not sure the closes that say the discussions are a rehash of the discussions consider those comments in the light of the points about incorrect weighing in the original close. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Most of the above would seem equally applicably to DRV, which this process is based upon. I think having a way for the community to review a particular close is a good thing. - jc37 19:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
The primary difference is that with a deletion there is nothing to look at, but new evidence is permitted. With move review, as I understand it, nothing has been deleted, and no new evidence is permitted. The only question is did the closer follow the closing instructions, based on the available information. If someone does not like the answer, they both can and often do open another RM, and bring up new information there. A move or no move does not delete anything, it just decides the appropriate name of the article. Were the five goals of a good title met? Was there sufficient evidence presented to support the move? Most of the time 9 out of 10 admins/closers will come to the same conclusion in any given situation, but there is always the occasional exception. That most of the MRV's support the RM is not surprising and to me is an indication that most of the RM's are being decided as expected. If it was otherwise, it would clearly be an indication that whichever editor closed the RM might want to read over the closing instructions more carefully. I was recently looking at a user page of an admin who had said they were in agreement with the result 100% of the time in one type of situation and 92% in another - which to me means that as an admin they might want to not be the only admin to make that second type of decision, because it would likely be "wrong" 8% of the time - and if that was RM, what good is it to have 8% of their RM's overturned at MRV? Personally I think it is an improvement to add MRV, because if someone comes along and makes a sloppy close there is a formal method of reviewing it - instead of starting all over. Apteva (talk) 02:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
That being said, so far I see 100.0000% action endorsed. Maybe I will be more fortunate. Apteva (talk) 02:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

While it is appropriate for a review process to be conservative, the subserviance of this process to WP:RMCI, a process instruction page, is too great. I attribute this to the steerage of this process by Mike Cline, who I read as excessively deferential to RMCI. I think this process should be more broadly charged with reviewing whether "the page move outcome was the right outcome and (secondly) whether the right process was followed". (Note that it must be simultaneously emphasized that this (or any) review process should not re-examine (aka "rehash") the basic facts, but I think there is no conflict about this among the regulars. That problem is of what to do when a couple of editors arrive here and proceed to rehash).

On WP:RMCI, I think that it is particularly poor as a community-authored consensus. It contains information that is a mix of technical, process and advice, making it hard for an outsider to penetrate, and it doesn't even have its own talkpage. WP:RMCI needs imporvement. That WP:Move review has drawn attantion to WP:RMCI is a good thing.

My clearest example of this criticism lies in the example of the CĂŽte d'Ivoire case. In the Move Review, Mike C. concluded, reflecting the review discussion, that all was fine because the closer followed the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI. Shortly later, at the closer's RfB, the closer was hammered for a close that was out-of-touch with community expectations. Of the various logical possibilities, the one I find most likely is that WP:RMCI is out-of-touch with community expectations. Frustration is that Mike refuses to answer questions on this, and that he (and all other RM-closing regulars) don't like my edits to RMCI, and it stands soft-protected.

WP:Move review has been very successful in bringing a focused review forum for page move grievances. Having grievances spread on all of the article talk page, the closer's usertalk page, and ANI, with all of them being inappropriate locations, was unproductive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Smokey, you make one comment that in this case is the crux of the matter: broadly charged with reviewing whether "the page move outcome was the right outcome and (secondly) whether the right process was followed". I contend, from extensive participation in both title policy and RM discussions, that obtaining the “right” title or “right” outcome as you call it will be a pipe dream as long as there are conflicts and multiple contextual interpretations of our title policy WP:Title, MOS, and naming conventions. Add in the increasing presence of culturally, politically charged RM discussions where the opposing sides wouldn't listen to the other side even if their life depended on it. In contentious RMs where opinions are divided, the “right” outcome will only apply to the winning side. Everyone else will consider the outcome “wrong” based on their interpretations of policy, guidelines, MOS and naming conventions. It would be great if there was just one area of contention but we can’t agree on Commonnames , Primary Topics, Diacritcs or not, Capitalization or not, Disambiguation or not, etc., etc. We have a policy/guideline suite relative to article titles that is a minefield of inconsistency and inconsistent application. Our WP:RMCI attempts to balance consensus based with policy based RM decisions. If I recall correctly, your edits to RMCI would emphasize local consensus in the RM discussion over policy/guideline interpretation. In other words, majority rules in an RM discussion (regardless of the differing interpretations of policy and evidence). That would be fine with me, because it would make closing RMs much easier—count the positions and go with the simple majority. That methodology will only generate the “right” outcome for the winning side, the losers will still consider the title “wrong”. In fact if we adopt the polling process in RMs, then MRV will become moot because the RM outcome will always be “right” for the winners and the losers won’t have any basis for complaint.
I would much rather see our energies put into fixing the multiple inconsistencies and misapplications of title policies, MOS and naming conventions than to use the MRV process to essentially allow RM discussion losers to claim the RM discussion came to the “wrong” conclusion from their perspective. Additionally, I don't have any issues with changing RMCI as long as those changes are adequetely discussed and consensus reached on the talk page (there's no reason RMCI can't have its own). If we change RMCI there will be consequences in the way RMs are closed. As long as we agree on accepting those consequences, then as an RM closer, I am comfortable with that. --Mike Cline (talk) 11:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Changing date (chronological) layout of Move Review

Seriously, I do not see mass activity of Move Review. For 2013, why not scrap out the 'day' and then go for "month year" (or "year month")? That way, we won't see too many days go by. --George Ho (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a logical change. Least from the short period of time I've watched this page, that most days have no reviews. PaleAqua (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to scrap the on-page logging by date. Let each nomination be in its own page, and transclude directly onto Wikipedia:Move review. Remove the trasnclusion after closing. This way, watchlisting WP:MR will reveal new discussions, and discussion closes, and not reveal the incrementation of the date. At the current rate of discussions, logging by year is appropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd oppose that SJ. And it's simple enough to add XfD/DRV/MRV pages en-masse to your watchlist using the "edit raw watchlist" option. - jc37 03:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I could manually add future Move review date logs to my watchlist? I suppose so, but it's not really a user friendle method. That aside, why is the TopPage/LogPage/DiscussionPage format preferred? What is the disadvantage of the MfD format? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
You mean as opposed to TFD and CfD format? : )
Disparate pages make it more difficult to follow discussions, not easier. AfD and MfD are clear examples of that. Otherwise, AfD wouldn't need all sorts of bots and other such tools to try to keep track of things... - jc37 03:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Xfd discussions are an apples and oranges comparison. Personally, I have little or no interest in following most deletion discussions. Articles or pages I am interested in show up in my watchlist when they are nominated. However, I am interested in review discussions, much as I try to keep some awareness of many policy discussions elsewhere. I think the point is that the low volume of traffic at this time doesn't really warrant the user-unfriendly apparatus designed for more high-volume areas. older ≠ wiser 04:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
So because you're disinterested in XfD you don't care, but since you're interested in MRV you suddenly care? Hmk. - jc37 06:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Jc, why do disperate pages make things harder to follow? I think that multiple simultaneaous unrelated discussions on the same page makes things harder to follow because it defeats the function of watchlisting. MfD is very easy to follow, the easiest by far I would say. AfD is so overloaded that it is virtaully certain that there are recent new entries. DRV and MR are a bit annoying in that you have to visit the page to see if there a new entries (unless I manually pre-watchlist future log pages). My question was (could be taken as): What is the advantage of the AfD format (top level page non-changing) over the MfD format (every new entry involves one edit to the top page)? Or do you dislike both equally? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
You want my honest opinion? I think that AfD's should take place on an article's talk page. We have enough bots and so on that it simply is not necessary for the discussions take place arbitrarily on some subpage of a project-space page (in this case Wikipedia:Articles for deletion]]). That brings them much closer to the article editors, especially those who likely have little knowledge or understanding of project space. Talk about simplifying watchlisting a discussion. Gave an article on your watchlist? Well you automatically have the AfD too, since it would be on the article's talk page.
Essentially, handle them just like requested moves, venue-wise. (Needless to say making such a change to AfD would require a community-wide discussion, not the least of which as it will affect several bots.)
As for the project-related XfDs (categories, redirects, templates, etc), I think they should be done using the log process (just as tfd, cfd, rfd, drv, and mrv do). Whether it should be daily, weekly, or monthly, of course can be figured out based upon page volume. Archiving discussions is unnecessary. The pages just stay where they are, easily findable.
The other benefit is I find that having more than one discussion on a page actually brings more editors to a discussion, particularly ones they might not have come to had the discussions been on separate pages. And anything which increases the number of diverse contributors is a good thing.
But let me ask you this: how many MfDs were there yesterday? How many the day before? - jc37 06:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd support switching from daily to monthly log pages. But as long as we make it clear that if the process needs it in the future, we can switch back to daily. - jc37 03:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I support SmokeyJoe's suggestion. The suggested remedy is far from "simple enough" to be rather inconvenient and seem intended to make it difficult for most editors to keep an eye on new discussions that arise. older ≠ wiser 03:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Why not have the MR take place on the article talk page, like we do with RMs? I'm not necessarily advocating this, just wondering why the current format was the one chosen. Hot Stop (Edits) 05:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd say, because the MR discussion is supposed to be about the process, not the facts of the original discussion. Discussions strictly about a process should be not directly connected to the subject of the article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Stalled?

In the currently open reviews, we so far have nothing but a continuing argument between the participants and the closer of the RMs. Is there a process whereby we can try to bring in some uninvolved admins and editors to actually review? Dicklyon (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is a good place. I will not get involved since I commented on some of the mess. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Looks like ErikHaugen got there first. FWIW, I endorse the endorsement :) --regentspark (comment) 18:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. DL: I ec'd with Vegas, I was about to say that this is probably a good place since as you said elsewhere "the activity is on sub-pages so doesn't show up on watch lists". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
It is perhaps because it is stalled that problematic closes are not even being referred. As prevention rather than cure, it might be a good idea in the WP:RMCLOSERGUIDEBOOK (forgive the redlink, just illustrates I have no clue where that would be) to see some general guidance that admins with known/shown personal preference for one view should not e.g. close in a contrary direction to 3:1 or even 2:1 support, just because they didn't themselves !vote. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:RMCI sort of touches on this a bit. —ErikHaugen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1000:3003:B6B5:2FFF:FEB8:147E (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Currently there is an excessive backlog at WP:RM, with some over four weeks old, but getting anxious about an MRV being closed precisely after a week is a tad premature. I have to say though, that MRV is turning into a joke with not even one close being overturned or re-opened in the months that it has been operating. Comet Hale-Bopp has absolutely no reason for not being overturned as move. But of course it can just be re-opened again. Apteva (talk) 03:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The other perspective, though, is that your requested moves are turning into a joke. There was absolutely no reason to overturn the closes of your hyphen/endash disruptive requests. But of course it looks like you'll disregard all disagreement with your foregone conclusion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

@ErikHaugen. Thanks, yes it does, but not very clearly, I had in mind an example where an editor with a known and strong view on a topic on the relevant (disputed) guideline page doesn't vote but then closes against 11:6 and says no more RMs for six months. It looks like a !supervote, and coupled with the no more for six months recommendation would probably have ended up here if WP:Move review was working. So perhaps Wikipedia:RMCI should say "if you have been active on discussion of a guideline do not close a RM related to the guideline even if you have not !voted in the RM" owtte. And similar preventative expansion to cover other common issues that can prevent WP:Move review even being necessary. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I presume you are talking about this close. If not then please link to the close you mean. If you were talking about P. III then as the closing administrator I think your presentation of the facts is skewed. What do you mean by "strong view on a topic on the relevant (disputed) guideline page"? That you talk about votes I think show that you have yet to grasp how the closing of a requested move process is assessed, because it is emphasised on the process page Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions that "Failure of an RM Closer to follow the spirit and intent of these instructions, especially about properly weighing consensus with applicable policies and guidelines, may result in the initiation of a Move Review." In this case a requested move was closed on 4 September 2012 by Qwyrxian (closed @ 17:56, 4 September 2012 and additional comment at 04:12, 5 September 2012. The less than 48 hours after the close--and with no consensus on the talk page to do so ("Post close comments" involved yourself and one other editor who disagreed with you)-- you opened a new requested move ("Requested move 2" opened at 01:56, 6 September 2012). On the 11th you made the second to last last comment before my closing of the debate:[4]
Note, it is now 11 support, 6 oppose. I point this out to show that despite the volume of text (and repetition) generated results are fairly consistent with last time. I suggest give it a rest and let it run the remaining days in case any new faces turn up.
I closed that new move with the comment:
I have looked at the new arguments afresh and I do not think that they change the assessments that user:Qwyrxian made when closing the debate less than a month ago.

There is a custom at WP:RM that when a debate such as the last one is closed that a period of time is allowed to pass (usually not less than 6 months) before an new RM is opened. If a debate is re-opened so soon after the last one then it is unlikely that the consensus o[r] lack there of will change unless very significant new facts need to be presented. I do not think that in this case this level of new evidence has been presented (a metric of this is there does not seem to be a convergence of opinion between those who expressed an opinion, last time and their opinions now).
Now that all the facts are present (with the exception of any evidence you can produce about my alleged bias) I will leave it to others to decide if my closing was in any way a failure "to follow the spirit and intent of these [closing] instructions"". -- PBS (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello PBS,
yes, in trying to find an example of the problem I raised to Erik actually that was the close that happened to come to my mind as an example. But I didn't link to it as I am not interested in opening old RMs, it's more productive to suggest that perhaps closing instructions (WP:RMCI) should be expanded to include the recommendation that editors active on the relevant guideline or guideline Talk page might defer to let others close discussions related to those guidelines.
  • The two guideline pages Qwyrxian pointed at when saying "absolutely no prejudice on a new discussion being re-opened very shortly were "(probably WP:SOVEREIGN, though the more general WP:Article titles applies as well)". Since you ask for an example, yes, you are active on both of these here on SOVEREIGN, though no, I don't see that a strong view indicates "bias," - everyone is entitled to a view, and nothing especially good about weak views.
  • And no, of course your closing was not in any way a failure "to follow the spirit and intent of these [closing] instructions"" How could it be? since despite Erik above saying "sort of touches on this a bit," the closing instructions don't include any specific guidance about whether an editor active on a guideline page directly relevant to a RM should or shouldn't close an RM. That's the point of my comment. My suggestion isn't about any specific RM close, it's about increasing confidence in closes. We all want RM participants to have confidence in the process, yes? So wouldn't some broadening of Wikipedia:RMCI to extend to editors active on the relevant guideline page be a good idea? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
-btw, @anyone, it's not my intention to get into a large and heavy discussion here, and I'm not taking any issue with any close. It's just one users' opinion, and is only limited to unusual scenarios such as closes contrary numbers like 3:1, 2:1, 11:3, 11:6 - evidently such numbers may sometimes be a RM vs guideline conflict, and in such cases it might be better to let editors not active on the guideline be the RM closer. That's all, the original comment was short and in passing, so quite happy to move back to article space. Cheers all and happy editing. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
While you argument "unusual scenarios such as closes contrary numbers like 3:1, 2:1, 11:3, 11:6 - evidently such numbers may sometimes be a RM vs guideline conflic" initially sounds attractive, but I think with a deeper analysis the dichotomy between the RM process and policy does not exist. If you look back through the archives of the RM talk pages, you will see that 6+ years ago I was in favour of voting on moves. With the assumption that the page should or be moved if there was a 60% + in favour of the move -- this was a mechanical system that gave the closer no discretion unless the "vote" was either small (or close to 60/40) in which case the close was the swing vote. However the consensus was against me on that one, chiefly because the muppets could create a local consensus which ignored and overruled the wider consensus as expressed in policy and guidelines. As an active initiator of requested moves you are well aware of requested moves where editors "vote" for their personal preference ignoring policy and guidelines (or justify their personal preference by selecting polices and guidelines that only obliquely refer to page moves, but supposedly support their choice while ignoring the wording in the AT policy and its naming conventions). In such cases RM closers who ignores the guidance in the AT policy and simply count votes to determine consensus are in my opinion mildly harming the project, and worse it encourages people with an axe to grind to propose more RMs in contradiction to AT policy and its naming conventions in the hope that a local consensus will yet again override the wider one.
A conscientious editor who closes several RMs which throws up a anomaly ought to discuss that anomaly on the talk pages of the policy or guidelines and be part of a consensus building exercise that if appropriate alters the policy or guideline to give guidance over such an anomaly. To suggest that because they have been involved in editing policy and guidelines, their knowledge of guidance should not be used, and that they should no longer close RMs where editors have "voted" contrary to guidance does not make sense to me.
I think that this move review ought to be used more where the close is done on simply counting "votes" without an explanation in the close that compares the evidence and arguments for a move against the requirements in policy and guidelines.
-- PBS (talk) 09:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
PBS, okay well that's another perspective I guess. Nevertheless an editor who edits a MOS page and an editor who !votes on a RM are still basically the same species. If there is an anomaly between the edits one group make and edits another group make then that would tend to support leaving closes of this sort to wholly uninvolved closers. That remains my view, for what it's worth. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
FWIW - Several years ago, I was challenged by another editor who felt that because I had participated in List guideline discussions, I should not close AfDs involving Lists on the basis that I could not be impartial if I had taken a position in a related guideline (policy) discussion. Subsequent to that challenge I initiated an RfC (I easily can't find it now) that essentially asked this question: Is an admin considered involved if they have participated in related policy/guideline discussions? The overwhelming conclusion was that it did not constitute being involved and that disqualifying admins from closing discussions related to policies or guidelines they had previously taken a position on is not what involved means. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree. The mere fact that someone has edited or commented on a guideline does not necessarily make them involved. A comment, for example, might be a restatement of an existing policy or guideline, a reading of consensus, a question, or an attempt at mediation. All of which is within the purview of admins as well as non-admins. Following the letter of the suggestion that comment = involved is not particularly practical either since it will make anyone who comments anywhere automatically involved and we'll end up with a diminishing set of editors from which closers can be drawn. --regentspark (comment) 17:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Those like me who looked at the process at first and thought it was a good ideacame quicky to realisation that it only served one purpose. To affirm that the closer can do what he wants. Why bother. Agathoclea (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

December not showing up

An editor started a discussion at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2012_December_10 that isn't visible here. I don't know if they missed a step or if something's not working, but I can't find it from this page.CĂșchullain t/c 14:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't in the instructions. I figured it out though. Hot Stop (Talk) 04:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I still don't see anything on this page. How are folks supposed to see the discussions to weigh in?CĂșchullain t/c 14:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, months ago, I overhauled the system because of stale activity. I trascluded the page, but I guess people don't see how to add it manually. --George Ho (talk) 06:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Expansion

I'd like to see this process change from "move review" to "closure review". This would include any discussion closures not already handled elsewhere (like DRV).

We didn't do this initially, because we weren't sure whether establishment of the move review process would gain consensus. Well, since then, it has.

And it's clear that there is no backlog issue, for one thing.

This would also have the effect on move reviews to help make it clear that merely the close is to be assessed/reviewed.

What do you all think? - jc37 06:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Probably a good idea. Which discussion is particular do you have in mind? Not bureacrat's RfA/bot/usurp discussions, I would advise. Not Block/Unblock discussions, as there is no defined block/unblock process to comment on.
Will it mean a rename for this page? I still want to loose the day by day formating, and definitely would still much prefer that every new reveiw discussion be located in its own new page that is transcluded directly into the main review page, so that I can see arrival and departures of discussions without having to visit the review page just to check. I'm sorry, but I don't care much for much of your honest opinion of 06:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Not Jc37's creation, but I also think that Wikipedia:Move_review#Typical_move_review_decision_options is little more than confusing. It certainly isn't historically accurate. In a broadened review forum, I'd like to see instructions loosened, as a freer review is a better review, with caveats, the the reviews should not be any more restrictive than is DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I think you and I will continue to disagree about having this be "separate page per discussion".
As for the types of discussions, let's just include templated process closures: requested moves, requested merges, requested splits, and other such requests for comment. - jc37 06:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I am happy to merely disagree. It is not an abrasive disagreement. It has no impact on the readership.
Requested moves; requested merges; requested splits; and other such requests for comment?
Sounds good. Never heard of requested splits. Should it be open to any RfC close? We agree that reviews must stick to the reviewing the close, and not repeat the original debate. RM reviews may actually be the hardest in that respect. I wonder whether we should (nominally) limit the participation in a review of participants of the reviewed discussion? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Move_review/Archive_2012&oldid=1257801001"