No consensus closure by a non-admin on a controversial article which has been twice nominated for deletion. Serious concerns that the article title is a violation of WP:POVNAME were not properly addressed. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From Closer – I don't mind if people want to overturn and let an admin handle it. I am admittedly not all that experienced at closing RMs, having done only a few dozen. There was (is) a huge backlog at WP:RM so I pitched in and closed about 8 that I thought were clear. This one clearly has no consensus, but maybe an admin will take a different direction with the POV complaint. I doubt it. Dicklyon (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A few dozen is a few dozen more than almost anyone else. Going through the objections: "non-admin on a controversial article" (the relevant guidelines suggest that a non-admin should be cautious; there's nothing to indicate that Dicklyon wasn't); "twice nominated for deletion" (irrelevant, as this was a move, not deletion, discussion, and obviously it passed both times); "concerns that the article title is a violation of WP:POVNAME were not properly addressed" (the closer stated "the association of snowflake with a generation has a POV, but that's the topic of the article, not a POV of the editors"). There isn't much of a case to answer, just whether the closer needed to be an admin. I see what you mean about the backlog: hundreds there. EddieHugh (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse or change to not moved. Agreed with EddieHugh's analysis of the close, and with the closer's analysis of the RM. I would have closed this as not moved with the same analysis, since the closer is correct that the "rename" was actually a major scope change and there was clearly not a consensus to rescope the article. By closing with no consensus it encourages the "rescopers" to ignore this find and just try again in a month or so. So, if the close is not endorsed it should be closed as not moved to prevent tendentious rehash. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – The close reflects a correct reading of the discussion; I see no grounds that another closer should have reached a different conclusion. Dicklyon is a regular at move requests, very familiar with relevant policies and best practices, and he cannot be accused of bias in this case. — JFGtalk07:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Definitely not a consensus to move, "no consensus" is easily defended, and "consensus to not move" would be a long stretch requiring a convincing move. Was the RM too controversial for an NAC? I don't think so. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Close seems reasonable there is no clear consensus. I see that the page has been nominated for deletion twice along with the MR. I do think that the merge into Generation Z article as a critic section should be given wider consideration, that option was mentioned late in the second deletion request. Seems to be a similar case to the Peter Pan Generation in the Millennials article. ( Yes I know WP:OSE ). PaleAqua (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Immigration policy of Donald Trump – overturned. Respondents in this discussion generally agree that the closer's reading of consensus in the original discussion was faulty, and that the closer's reliance on previously absent evidence in their decision constituted a supervote and was inappropriate. As an aside from this close I believe the original discussion was incomplete, thus I encourage the participants to start a new discussion immediately. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Closer QEDK asserted a "clear consensus" without providing a reading of the discussion in light of policy. In particular, several Oppose !votes argued that we should distinguish the policy positions of Donald Trump as presidential candidate (which is the overwhelming content of the articles under discussion) from the policies of the Trump administration (which are only starting to emerge and will likely develop into something different). Some of the move supporters even acknowledged the opposers' viewpoint. Consequently, I believe the discussion did not reach consensus and should have been closed with no action. Finally, the closer added a mention of the Obama precedent, which had not been called upon by discussants other than to argue whether titles should include the full "Donald Trump" name or just "Trump". The closer's argument is therefore a WP:supervote. When I asked the closer for clarification, he replied It's a 13 for 5 against, I'm sorry but there's a clear majority who wanted it to be moved. It is fine if you want an analysis but that's not reason enough to overturn., and he was reminded of WP:NOTAVOTE by Amakuru. — JFGtalk08:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (to no consensus). I was surprised immediately, and after repeated rereads I'm afraid that the close doesn't reflect my reading. I can't get past oppose points that were not countered. It certainly was not a "clear consensus". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean you're okay with the close result but not the rationale and want it to be overturned with the same result but different rationale or do you want a relist? --QEDK (愛)09:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The first 9 !votes, nominator, five "Agree"s two "Support"s, etc, were brief. The first opposition began with JFG, and his and later "oppose" !votes were not well rebutted. The last recorded !vote was a well reasoned oppose, and it is bad form to so quickly follow that with a close in favour of support. I read no consensus. Further discussion may be a good idea. My own new opinion, based most onthe last two !votes (B2C & Aervanath), is that the page should be moved, but personal or idiosyncratic immigration opinions of Trumps that are not manifested as Administration Policies should be moved into a different article such as Political positions of Donald Trump or Donald Trump's immigration opinions. Definitely "no consensus" yet. I do also agree there is substance to the WP:Supervote alegation. It is not for the closer to cite "precedent" without precedent being discussed by participants. Trump is not like Obama, the precedent argument is debatable. The close addendum only made it worse. Vote counting, the closer's "facts", yes, even though the closed matched my opinion, it was wrong ("clear consensus"), !vote-counting, and a supervote. Finally, as a non-admin, you are not entitled to "admin discretion", and must close conservatively. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing such as special admin discretion and I don't know where you're bringing it up from, I understand if it's your opinion that non-admins should not make contentious closures but that's just your opinion. Even if participants don't bring up any precedent, the closer can make closes in accordance to policy, it's my duty to carry out any editorial review of the contents and add as I see fit. A consensus-building discussion is not a debate but a process to gauge to where opinion stands and in this case it was on the other side of the court. There is no policy regarding this RM, so anything you say, whether constructive or not, will only be held as an opinion and not a word of approved policy. --QEDK (愛)10:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you've gone ahead and searched it, you're now also aware that there is no such policy regarding admin discretion and their closes are subject to exactly the same scrutiny as any other non-admin close. --QEDK (愛)17:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You might like to add to the conversation at Wikipedia_talk:Non-admin_closure#Wikipedia:Aministrator_discretion. We were discussing documenting the very old and deeply established practice of respecting admin's right to exercise discretion in certain, poorly defined, circumstances, and for that discretion to be respected. Admin discretion is required where a decision needs to be made, and there is a fair degree of arbitrariness in the decision. It probably dates from the earliest days before WP:VfD was established, and it applies most directly to deleting and blocking decisions. A reason it continues to be important is that discretionary decision making it is coupled to WP:ADMINACCT, there has to be some tangible benefit for enduring the RfA baptism of fire, for borderline candidates. Another more important reason is that borderline closes, if open for anyone to close, would encourage opinionated closers to rush in quick to do it, or for there to be the appearance of this behaviour. This would amount to a breakdown of respect for the process. Now this discussion, this RM, could have been closed differently by other closers, easily. I think, very probably it would have been. And if an admin closer has used their admin discretion to reflect a deeper wisdom in the discussion, they would have closed it with more skill. In case I am being unclear: it was an inappropriate WP:NAC; it did not reflect the discussion; it should have been closed as "no consensus", or left for further discussions, especially considering that the latest !votes were adding quality arguments and were swinging against the early !votes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not rejecting your opinion regarding my close - you think it was unfair, and it's absolutely fine (though that is not my opinion, ofc). Elapsed listings don't need to be kept open any longer than necessary. Admin discretion only makes sense where they have the technical rights to make such a decision, elsewhere it's plain inequality if admins were to have discretionary rights which non-admins do not. To repeat, there's no policy citing so and even if you think there should be, there isn't (thankfully, I must add). --QEDK (愛)06:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@QEDK: actually admins do have more discretion in closes than non-admins - as SmokeyJoe says above, the whole point of RfA is to vet those users and to show that the community explicitly trusts them to carry out administrative decisions, of which closing RMs is one. You say it's inequality but it isn't really, because you're free to apply for adminship yourself, it's not a closed club. More specifically, the instructions at WP:RMNAC say: "Non-admin closes normally require that: The consensus or lack thereof is clear after a full listing period". Now that's not policy, but it's a general rule that many people will apply when evaluating the close, and you should expect more scrutiny to be placed on non-admin closure of a borderline RM as a result. That's not to say non-admins shouldn't close discussions - far from it, and I closed plenty of RMs myself before I gained the mop. Just that I would have been unlikely to close this particular one as a non-admin, and particularly not through vote counting, as it's very clearly a borderline case requiring in depth analysis. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To call my close a "supervote" is absolutely incorrect. Votes are means for deciding consensus and I've taken in account the content of each vote and it only seems to me that you do not like the conclusion. When I close, I do not need to prove that opposes/supports are invalid, only which hold better - in this case it was all "for". The Obama precedent was what I brought up, to cite that pages had been moved in this manner previously (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreign_policy_of_Barack_Obama&action=history et al., you can find others similar). What I'd recommend is if you'd waited for a move review until the RM which is underway is carried out (or not), because right now, you're just taking the whole technical procedure backwards - it should be this move review which should be closed because that RM discussion was already underway. I admire though, how instead of quoting all my replies, you decide to pick the part you like and play it to your version of events. Good day. --QEDK (愛)09:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@QEDK: You did provide a more detailed close rationale after the discussion on your talk page; thanks for this. I was still stunned by your initial reply to my request for clarification and this is why I quoted this part above. I have been questioned about some of my move closures as well (e.g. on Queen Anne of Romania, endorsed at move review), and always took such questions as a sign that either I was mistaken or I was unclear; it would never occur to me to dismiss the questioner's remarks with a blanket "majority rules the day" argument. On this specific case, I see no consensus arising out of the discussion, irrespective of my personal position there. — JFGtalk07:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand how I dismissed your remarks if I chose to add rationale but I'll reply again anyway. It is okay that you do not find consensus, but simply put, there's no policy that demarcates this current page move, hence every statement that you made, good or bad, is essentially your opinion, and it's my duty as a closer to gauge where consensus stands and the tally pointed to one side for sure. You're also forgetting that this move had a precedent which means that my close was more policy-based than some of the set opposes. Good day. --QEDK (愛)10:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Spaully: There's no restrictions as to who can participate in this discussion, but this is to discuss my close regarding the discussion and not the contents of the discussion itself. --QEDK (愛)09:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@QEDK: Thanks, I was aware of that from reading the blurb; however, you having closed against my opinion seems to me a source of conflict of interest that, combined with this being my first time here, means it is best for me to mostly observe. BW |→ Spaully~talk~16:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's your call, I just wanted to drop a note in case you you assumed so (which wasn't the case). My apologies. --QEDK (愛)17:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus - (note: I opposed the move). The response It's a 13 for 5 against, I'm sorry but there's a clear majority who wanted it to be moved shows a clear lack of understanding of WP:CONSENSUS. It is never enough to just add up the votes, but rather the tally has to be viewed through the lens of policy, and also the merits of supporting and opposing arguments must be evaluated too. Other than that, the summary given by JFG above is valid. Weighing the points made by the support and the oppose, both of whom make good points, gives no clear consensus, and hence the status quo should have been maintained. Finally, the closer failed to use the {{rmnac}} template on the close, which is compulsory for non-admin closes per WP:RMNAC. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the last bit can be fixed by anyone, if that really was a reason at all, that is. :) But I've gone ahead and fixed it. --QEDK (愛)19:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I've struck that part now. Not including RMNAC isn't a reason to overturn a close, of course, but it is compulsory according to the instructions, which is why I flagged it up as an addendum to the main part of my comment. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. Perhaps "clear consensus" was a bit strong, but the closer was certainly within his purview to find consensus in this case. There are countless cases where consensus was found in much grayer discussions. Also, I think starting this review after another RM is already going, and closing that RM, to be disruptive. --В²C☎19:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus – despite the majority of !votes in favour of moving, their rationale was either non-existent or poor. There was clear vote counting here, and Wikipedia is not a democracy. While QEDK should be thanked for trying to reduce the backlog, they should have left the close to an administrator, especially seeing how controversial it was. Laurdecltalk07:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
