- Portal:Current events (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)
The closer closed this move discussion as not moved per majority. While I do believe the consensus was to not move the page, RMs should be closed based on consensus, not votes. Interstellarity (talk) 12:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the RM closer should have evaluated the consensus instead of counting votes, but why is the result (not moving the page) the wrong interpretation of the consensus? Iffy★Chat -- 14:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Iffy: I was the original proposer of the RM. If I were uninvolved, I don't close RMs, but if I did, I would have closed it as not moved because consensus was against this move. RM is not a vote, it's a discussion on whether or not a move should be made. I left a note on the closer's talk page, but they did not respond. Interstellarity (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per WP:NOTBURO. So in the end, you think the RM closer came to the right conclusion, but for the wrong reason. As bad as the closing statement is, I see no reason to overturn the closure just to write a better one in its place. Iffy★Chat -- 16:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, while the closing sentence was not great (I have actually never seen "per majority" close), I think I have to agree with Iffy to endorse this, as the outcome is nevertheless correct. GeoffreyT2000 can also help to resolve this more cleanly by just amending his close to "per consensus". I hope he do that. – Ammarpad (talk) 10:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Reclose as "Consensus to not move". Non-ideal word choice by the closer, but nothing really to see here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Please look at a correction I have made. Do you think that this correction is sufficient? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The closer fixed the perceived problem with the closing statement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
