Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 October: Difference between revisions

Palestinian_genocide_accusation (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)

I believe there was consensus to move the page. The number of editors supporting the move was significantly greater than those opposing it, and most supporting comments cited relevant Wikipedia policies. However, the closer simply stated that “many support arguments are strong; however, the oppose rationales are much stronger and policy-based,” without explaining why the opposing arguments were stronger or identifying which specific policies informed that assessment. I asked the closer for clarification on their talk page, but the explanation remained the same.

Given the substantial participation and the fact that both sides presented policy-based arguments, a bare assertion that the opposes were “much stronger and policy-based” does not, in my view, provide an adequate rationale for a complex and high-profile RM discussion.

Because this is a contested and high-visibility topic, the discussion could reasonably have been allowed to continue for the full 30 days before closure.

Requested remedy :Overturn to **relist** (or reopen) for further discussion, or overturn to a **re-close with an expanded, policy-specific rationale** by an uninvolved closer that explicitly weighs the principal arguments and explains why one side outweighed the other in this case. Cinaroot (talk) 03:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn unless if closer gives a more thorough explanation – actually reading through the args, I think no consensus is probably a valid outcome, and the close is almost good enough. However, the closer needs to give more information about why, as well as advice on why the move failed and how a future one could work? The close includes the line that the oppose argument is self-evident, but enough folks voted support that it clearly is not without spelling it out. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:52, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also think editors should be continued to debate for at least 30 days since it’s a highly contested topic. Unless the consensus is not going to change – it can be closed Cinaroot (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s the rule for RfCs. RMs “are typically processed after seven days“. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:09, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, a similar move request for Gaza genocide ran for over two months (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1232356978#Requested_move_3_May_2024). Allowing at least 30 days for discussion here would ensure broader participation and a more comprehensive range of arguments on what is clearly a highly contested topic. Cinaroot (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist as inadequate summary for a strong majority to swallow, not as helpful as it should be based on result. If there is no consensus with such a weighting of !votes there needs to be a more substantial summary. The closer has acknowledged this on talk page and provided one there, after this review was opened, and was willing to revert (but didn’t think they were asked to?!). This is a waste of move review if the closer is willing to revert due to an inadequate summary, was willing to do so (own words), while also providing the summary too late to be able to amend the close. As a heads up to any unaware closers out there, always assume a disgruntled participant is requesting you revert your closer or will head to move review, this should be self-explanatory and should not require spelling out (even if it was specifically spelt out as such in this case). As involved, I’m not going to !vote for overturned here and review should realistically be procedurally closed by reverting by the seemingly willing closer. Ideally the closer is still willing to revert and we can move on. As for “Unnecessary as the reviewers will read this discussion and realize that I would have done that had you specifically asked me to.”[1], I wouldn’t be so sure of that; the way the situation was handled by the closer was worse than the close itself. CNC (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]