532:
as this is beneficial for working throuh the backlog and helping them to build experience and track record ready for adminship. But for MRV it seems correct that it should be an admin, and preferably one very familiar with the RM process, because MRV is really the court of last appeal for move discussions and admins are those who have been explicitly endorsed by the community as having the experience and trust necessary to provide a fair and reasoned decision.
2355:
31:
1963:] that moved the category from Automobiles to Cars. It involved just 4 editors and no effort to notify impacted articles/projects. My assertion is that the consensus of just 4 editors didn't reflect a wider consensus based on the second CfM. I was told I picked the wrong venue the first time ie I should have just asked for a name change review. However, then, just as now I don't know the correct venue for the discussion.
547:
WBG closed as endorse, with no explanation or indication that they had read the arguments in the MRV, and even imposed a moratorium of a "considerable span of time" on what is really at best a no-consensus close. I have raised the issue on their talk page, so I hope they will reverse or reconsider their close, but I'm mentioning it here too just to get some more opinions. Thanks. —
1633:, I don't understand you response either. Surely, encouraging the RM closer to take responsibility to as for the close of a premature MR *is* an important part of enforcing the "ask the closer first" step? And I have no idea why you would think that past bogged down discussions will influence future premature MR nominations, noting that they don't come from MR regulars. --
2176:). I think CFD kept renames in because the same bots deal with them as do the deletions/merges. With RFD a redirect can only point to 1 target so in the example of Beds it is over the target then MR deals better with that. If and AFD resulted in a rename (other than one to user/draftspace or to widen the scope of the page) then I'd say MR would be a better venue, although
1857:
that I believe the original closing was flawed based on insufficient community input. The evidence being to the no consensus when a wider audience was notified. I'm just not sure which Venus handles this sort of question. When you say advertise at CfD, do you mean post there after starting a discussion here or do you mean ask this same location question there?
1434:
712:, and the goal is to get the right result for the Knowledge (XXG), not for individual editors to "win" or "lose" the discussion. I always accept it when the community feels a different way about something than I do, but if that happens I at least like to understand why. In this case, it seems like the discussion has settled for
1608:. Unfortunately, it might take a few bogged down MRs for editors to learn the obvious benefits of first discussing the RM result on the closer's talk page. We do not really need to modify the process to fix this problem. We just need to find good, effective ways to enforce the process as it now exists.
531:
The instructions for closing a MRV discussion clearly say "an administrator..." throughout, which to me means that MRV discussions should not be closed by a non-admin. I am all in favour of non-admins conducting ordinary move closes, (and indeed I used to do many such myself before acquiring the mop)
2212:
I understand the rationale, and the idea appeals to me as well, but how do we avoid future debates about the appropriate venue based on the degree to which a discussion does or does not involve deletion? To what extent does deletion have to be discussed or supported at CfD, in order for the venue to
1856:
Thanks for the reply. Here is the situation. A category was moved based on a 4:0 consensus but with very limited notification. I was only aware of this after the CfM was closed. I opened a follow up CfM with wider advertisement and participation. It resulted in a no consensus closing. Based on
1683:
initiation of discussion with closer prior to opening an MR, and the consequence for failing to do so is automatic suspension of said MR (by anyone) until such discussion is attempted. Then if said discussion with closer leads to resolution then prematurely opened MR can be closed/deleted; otherwise
590:
needs to be harmonized, meaning tightened, back to the WP:NAC standard. MRV closes, like DRV closes, should be even more cautiously closed. We’ve had these discussions at WT:DRV, and most feel that for the ceremony of finality, an admin is required, although notable expert nonadmin closers, namely
1730:
Rather than a policy/guideline solution, as those are already quite clear, I think we should take a technical approach. I would suggest the creation of some sort of edit filter that is triggered when one files an MR (i.e. uses the MR template), which checks whether one spoke to the closer on his or
1551:
Yes, do look for unintended consequences. Modify my idea. No, the idea is that it is not good to have unhappy editors go straight to MR, but for them to slow down a bit, and get things clarified. My idea here is not addressing the encouragement of editors to talk nicely and informally first, but
1484:
In my opinion, the close was overreach (others say it was fine). An early run of opinion was for a relist/reopen. The closer even agreed with that, fairly early in his discussion. This really should be routine, an NAC borderline overreach relisted on request. The complainant then promptly makes
546:
this morning, which does not seem crystal clear or unanimous. I raised several points objecting to the rationale used by those endorsing, and I think the fairest outcome would have been a relist so that I could go back and make my points about style in the RM and have them discussed fully. Instead,
2234:
was written for, on the issue of whether "merge and redirect" results at AfD should have their challenges entertained at WP:DRV, where I maintained, and others agree, the answer was "no" if the issue didn't involve deletion. Pseudo-deletion by redirection marks the line where DRV is the venue for
1538:
If we altered the process as you suggest, I think that would encourage more unhappy editors to go straight to MR without a discussion with the closer. Is that what we want? In other words, you're talking about a remedy for a scenario (MR file without discussion with closer) that thankfully rarely
817:
An interesting question would be how often a challenge on the closer's talk page results in any sort of change of decision, and how often it results in the person querying the close being satisfied. If an MRV discussion is almost always the outcome anyway, then the discussion on the closer's page
1657:
maybe what is needed actually would be a change in the process? Suppose, rather than closing the MR, it is temporarily suspended pending discussion with the closer? Then, if that discussion results in resolution, the MR can be closed, if not, the suspension is lifted and the MR commences. Do you
962:
should me modified to include the link to the discussion with the closer. NB I am not much in favour that the discussion *must* be on the closer's user_talk page, often, a subsection immediately following the closed&boxed RM discussion is a better place. If it is not a question of personal
611:
As a former admin and occasional MRV/DRV closer, I did not stop performing these closures after becoming a non-admin. I simply avoid performing closures where their implementation requires admin tools or which seem exceptionally contentious. I've not had a closure questioned yet, even though the
1492:
supports above? When the RM closer essentially agreed to the MR nominator's request, should the MR have been closed at that point? I think there was nothing left to review, but the discussion had become so heavy that I suspect the old experienced respected closers preferred to stay out of the
832:
The reason that informal closer-talk-page discussion is advised is that the inquirer can get an answer and potential satisfaction so much quicker that way. Anyway, that's why it makes sense to me. Bypassing that step and going straight to a formal MRV means that the outcome might be delayed by
1481:, agreed to a relist/re-open, and really what should have happened was a request put to him directly BEFORE this came to MR. It is bad that it came prematurely to MR. It is bad this became bogged down in MR procedure after the closer agreed to relist. How can we fix this process problem?"
2238:
Generally, DRV is the highest level venue for questions of content, and its high importance is tempered by the narrowness of the core question, to delete, or not to delete. Whether a category is titled "cars" or "automobiles" really is not critical question for
Knowledge (XXG), even if the
833:
several days or weeks. It seems to me that inquirers would jump at the chance to possibly get answers and satisfaction within a few hours rather than wait for an MRV to close. So it puzzles me that editors almost always seem to want to zip straight to an MRV. That's what I don't get.
927:
That's a good question. I'd suspect it would be far more commmon that a Move Review that had no chance anyway was avoided rather than that the decision was varied by the closer, but that's a guess. Of course MRs are generally raised by people who disagree with the result, so perhaps
1552:
what to do with a MR discussion that has, or is in the process of, blowing up out of control, and out of proportion. In that discussion, you appear to want to accede to the request, but no one knows what to do about it except wait for the discussion to run out of air. --
744:
makes some valid points about MR nominations that were launched without an attempt to discuss the matter with the discussion closer. I made some counter-points, but I think the discussion is worth continuing. It may well be beneficial sometimes to closed
707:
made in his comments at the MRV, I had added some extra context to it that hadn't been made in the RM itself. Usually if it comes to light that there are points of discussion that were not made before the close, it's sensible to relist because there is no
1809:
I'm trying to decide the correct location to request the review of a category move. WP:DRV and WP:MR have both been suggested. I would think this is the correct location but it seems this is for articles not categories. Any help would be appreciated.
131:
The Aloy one was a mess all around, I agree; fortunately the underlying question went away. You should just explain to the parties who messed up how you think they can do better in the future. I don't see what you're saying the problem is on the
2117:), this has been the case. I agree that this is a bit strange, but that's how the system works at present. Feel free to propose a change to that system. Until such a change comes into effect, DRV is the correct venue for reviewing CfD closings.
2229:
I don't think it is matter of great consequence, but DRV is "deletion review", and it should be for discussion resulting in deletion, or that arguably should have resulted in deletion. This is similar to what the essay
1717:
Poor choice of word on my part. How about pre-authorized? My point is failure to contact the closer first makes that MR as subject to suspension as any unilateral edit to article content is subject to
Reverting per BRD.
1042:, so nominators can show where they discussed the result with the closer. This would work well for the vast majority of MRs, even multiples as long as the same editor closed all the RMs. The listing would look like this:
2171:
I agree with SmokeyJoe, any CFD that involves a rename should go to MR, since its the same as a RM. DR is for deletions and merges/redirecting. Likewise I'd suggest that RFDs that don't involve deletion should go to MR
72:. The last because the closer implements her unilateral opinion not supported by anyone else in the discussion. The second last because he throws in a opinion not reflecting consensus evident in the discussion, aka
271:
The reason why is because the action taken on an
Endorse close is the same regardless of whether the page has been moved. The don't relist decision should be removed because it is essentially the same as an endorse
2307:
then its the move process. With RFD it can be more complicated in that there may be discussion on both retargeting and deletion. However maybe to avoid complication we should just keep things as they are.
1785:, what happens if the closer agrees to reopen/relist? Do all those moves have to be reversed? If they're not, then the re-opened RM discussion is confusing. If the move was A→B and the RM is reopened at
1575:
to speedy close a inappropriate/concluded MR discussion will discourage an unhappy RM participant (or not-yet-participant) from posting their problem on the closer's talk page. Maybe you could explain.
356:
Also, please use lowercase ("Moved to new title", not "Moved to New Title", and "Not moved", not "Not Moved", and "No action required", not "No Action
Required" and "If consensus", not "If Consensus").
76:. This is a worry. Note that a supervote does not mean the facts of the closing statement are wrong, but that the closer has stated something that is not a reading of consensus from the discussion. —
1504:
1494:
1789:
that's confusing. It's no big deal to reverse the move if the move in question involved only one article (and its talk page), but perhaps there are several dozen subtopics too. Then what? --
274:
388:
1928:
595:, continued to be well accepted. Admin closes carry more weight because only admins have passed the baptism of fire of RfA where ability to call a consensus is explicitly examined. —
2173:
1604:
I do support speedy-closing an MR that has not been pre-discussed, but only with full endorsement of the close. Anything else would foster results we do not want, as suggested by
862:
and come straight here, without reviewing further documentation here to understand what "contest the outcome" means in this context. I think revising the wording of the line at
703:
perhaps I didn't make my point very well and sounded arrogant above, but I said "so I could go back and make my points" because that's what I meant. I missed this RM, and as
2113:. Look through the archives. DRV has always held reviews for CfD discussions, including those that do not result in deletion. You can see that at least as far back as 2006 (
795:
I suggest that a closer (and the closer's talk page stalkers) should be allowed at least 24 hours to respond. I'm yet to see a move review that had to be urgently listed.
1943:? I advise you to read it slowly. That CfD was a quite defensible “no consensus”, neither DRV nor MR would overturn it, and starting from the CfD you look to be
981:
belong on the article talk page, because the merits of the move are not under discussion. That would be rediscussing the RM itself, which is explicitly what MR is
2231:
2051:
Sorry, I assumed CfD was category for deletion. Regardless, this was a move so this appears to be the place. Please stop bludgeoning every discussion.
2105:
Whether it is suited or not is a different question from the one I was answering. It may well be suited to do so, but up until now, never has, and the
1471:
1488:
In this case, there was no approach to the closer (that I have found). Should have the MR nomination been speedy closed on this basis, as I think
2091:
has repeated this a few times in a few places. I disagree. WP:MR is very well suited to host a review of a category rename discussion and close. —
1580:
And then, even if unhappy people more routinely (NB they already do routinely) come straight to MR, is there really a big problem with this? --
1731:
her talk page, and displays a warning if one hasn't. I'm certain this can be done...similar to how such an edit filter is used for DS alerts.
2005:
MR does not do consider CFDs, only RMs. Not once in its history has it ever reviewed a CfD. It's right in the header of the page. Go to DRV.
1367:
please note that the sandbox has been altered. The closer info is now at the end of the links rather than at the beginning. Is that better?
2226:. If the discussion touched on the question of deletion, got to DRV, if deletion was not on the cards (i.e. rename only), it is not for DRV.
1977:
At DRV I would !vote “speedy close, no deletion issue”. At MRV I would !vote “Endorse, wait six months and then consider trying again”. —
1539:
occurs, but, if remedied as you suggest, would ironically probably cause such scenarios to occur more often. Unintended consequences? --
1825:
Note well that neither reviews the actual move so much as the closing descision and maybe a check on the process around the discussion.
1747:
278:
1028:
392:
535:
Now of course, if the MRV is open-and-shut, because the decision is unanimous and/or policy is crystal clear, it would be fine per
1291:
1190:
1099:
1285:
1184:
1093:
313:, and I think it needs changing. “Consensus to move”, “no consensus”, and “consensus to not move” are plain English statements. —
1699:"automatic" suspension. It would be an administrative action, requiring a WP:UNINVOLVED human, and the place to ask for it is
753:
The MRV nomination is not particularly persuasive, makes vague points, or asks questions appropriate to be answered informally.
582:
I think there has been a slightly worrying rash of adventurous NAC closings of RMs that is now spilling into MRV. I think the
2371:
759:
The MRV nominator makes no statement that they deliberately did not follow the recommendation to discuss with the closer.
47:
17:
698:
683:
665:
543:
511:
Note:I have reverted IP changes because the discussion is not closed currently, let the discussion run at least 1 week.
963:
understanding, but of relevance to the topic, the article talk page is where comments relevant to the topic belong. --
2132:
I think, moving forward, category rename discussions not involving deletion, needing review, should go to WP:MR. --
1961:
SmokeyJoe, I'm not trying to dispute the Nov 19th conclusion. I agree with it. My concern is the Oct 22nd closing
1838:
in theory should be receptive to a category retiring decision issue, but it may be a very good idea to advertise at
2362:
959:
38:
749:" and speedily send the nom to the closer's talk page. I think this may be a good idea when the following apply:
310:
1669:
1619:
1523:
If there are no other important matters in the mix requiring resolution, the review should be closed, surely? --
1451:
1418:
1378:
1332:
1227:
891:
844:
791:
That close was surprising, would you mind reconsidering it? (preferably state what exactly you found surprising)
1303:
1255:
1202:
1154:
1111:
1063:
1908:
while DRV is for "disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions" which covers any discussions at
1750:. If this can be done, I think it will help...someone that defies such a warning does so at their own peril...
1875:
1835:
1508:
855:
112:
106:
1878:
and help build a consensus on the question being reviewed. It is similar to your cars automobiles question. —
2317:
2189:
1493:
horrid mess, if they were reading it at all. One idea I have is that the RM closer could/should request at
1317:
Above is an alternative example from the sandbox of a case where there was no discussion with the closer (
1944:
802:, but if the MRV is already initiated, the closer can readily reply gently and informally in the MRV. --
799:
69:
2335:
2124:
2080:
2041:
2012:
1757:
1738:
376:
362:
1839:
709:
1793:
1722:
1688:
1661:
1630:
1611:
1543:
1489:
1443:
1410:
1370:
1324:
1219:
883:
836:
741:
1251:
1243:
1150:
1142:
1059:
1051:
2248:
2137:
2096:
1982:
1952:
1917:
1883:
1847:
1708:
1638:
1585:
1557:
1528:
1394:
968:
807:
641:
619:
600:
318:
122:
81:
2338:
2323:
2252:
2217:
2195:
2141:
2127:
2100:
2083:
2069:
is the venue for categories. Look at the move review page, read the instructions. Only reviews of
2060:
2044:
2029:
2015:
2000:
1986:
1972:
1956:
1921:
1887:
1866:
1851:
1819:
1796:
1760:
1741:
1725:
1712:
1691:
1673:
1642:
1623:
1589:
1561:
1546:
1532:
1455:
1422:
1398:
1382:
1336:
1231:
997:
972:
941:
916:
895:
875:
848:
827:
811:
725:
691:
673:
647:
634:
This comment is about MRV NACs in general and not about this specific discussion, for the record.
625:
604:
573:
556:
520:
396:
380:
366:
340:
322:
304:
282:
145:
126:
100:
85:
2310:
2207:
2182:
2056:
2025:
1996:
1968:
1862:
1815:
871:
141:
96:
1940:
777:
Where there is a good reason not to discuss the matter with the closer, it should be mentioned.
587:
1936:
Not a deletion discussion, but a rename discussion, so a request for review should go to WP:MR.
2223:
2214:
1115:
993:
937:
912:
823:
721:
704:
552:
73:
1700:
1572:
211:
Option 2: (If
Consensus to move to a new title is clear) Move title to new title and close RM
2329:
2118:
2088:
2074:
2035:
2006:
1751:
1732:
988:
Modifying that template to encourage following the existing procedure sounds a better idea.
569:
516:
372:
358:
336:
300:
2066:
1909:
1901:
1897:
1831:
583:
536:
1790:
1719:
1685:
1605:
1568:
1540:
1478:
798:
I personally don't have strong feelings on this. Discussing first with the close is good
636:
614:
592:
539:
for non-admins to close. But the reason I mention this is because there was a move review
309:
I agree, it is jargon, it confuses. It is not plain
English. It was a bad idea added at
2110:
2106:
2070:
1905:
863:
859:
65:
2244:
2203:
2133:
2092:
1978:
1948:
1913:
1879:
1843:
1704:
1652:
1634:
1599:
1581:
1553:
1524:
1390:
1350:
1007:
964:
803:
596:
450:
Option 2: (If consensus to move to a new title is clear) Move to new title and close RM
314:
118:
77:
2034:
This never involved a CfD? The 22 October discussion was a CfD, as was the newer one.
2052:
2021:
1992:
1964:
1858:
1811:
1358:
1015:
867:
448:
Option 1: (If RM consensus is unclear or significantly divided) Reopen and relist RM
209:
Option 1: (If RM consensus is unclear or significantly divided) Reopen and relist RM
137:
92:
2301:
2291:
2281:
2271:
2261:
2240:
1362:
1354:
1019:
1011:
989:
933:
908:
819:
785:
717:
548:
1474:, I think it needs follow-up here, and possible modification of the MR process.
716:
as the name of the article, but for reasons that aren't obvious to me. Thanks —
2370:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
565:
512:
332:
296:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
907:. Not convinced the wording is perfect yet but definitely addresses a problem.
767:
There was a post-RM discussion by others that more-or-less covered everything;
1991:
Ok, when I get a chance in the next few days I will open a discussion here.
858:
can be used to contest the outcome of a move request" in the introduction at
763:
Possibly good reasons not to have a discussion with the closer may include:
1929:
Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 26#Category:Cars
953:
is probably impressive to people likely to frequent WT:MR, and few others.
2065:
I'm just pointing out that anything opened here will be speedily closed.
1571:, I really don't see how an WP:MR encouragement for an RM closer to do a
586:
articulated standards should be expected at RM the same as XfD, and that
295:? Is it confused to other people, but I will leave other people comment.
160:
On the move review decision page, I suggest changing the table to this:
1514:(a) failure of the nominator to discuss the problem with the closer; or
1133:
parameter is omitted or left blank, the listing could be same as now:
2328:
I intend to open a formal RfC on whether to expand the scope of MR.
228:
Move title back to pre-RM title, reopen and relist RM if appropriate
736:
Failure to attempt to discuss the matter with the discussion closer
713:
664:.At any case, best of wishes for the re-close of this MRV........
133:
1805:
Is this the correct place to request a review of a category move?
2177:
1505:
Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure
1495:
Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure
2349:
387:
Based on your comments, how about changing the table to this?
25:
1781:
Another related issue is when the contested RM resulted in a
1472:
Knowledge (XXG):Move_review/Log/2018_October#Nanjing_Massacre
1407:
Thank you! If nobody objects, I'll implement in a few days.
985:. And a perennial problem is that people try to make it that.
770:
The closer indicated that challenges should go direct to MRV.
113:
Knowledge (XXG):Move_review#Aloy_(Horizon_Zero_Dawn)_(closed)
467:
Move back to old title, reopen and relist RM if appropriate
1503:
The RM closer should have special standing to request, at
656:
There's usually perspective problems when someone state:--
612:
letter of the DRV/MRV guidelines make no mention of NACs.
371:
Some strikethrough above. I wasn't reading it correctly. —
354:
Shouldn't "Move to new title" be "Move back to old title"?
2180:
for AFDs that have been closed as move doesn't show any.
1904:
is a relatively newer process solely to review closes of
977:
Ah, but that's the point exactly... that discussion does
107:
Knowledge (XXG):Move_review#Involuntary_celibacy_(closed)
2213:
shift from MR to DRV, and who will decide each time? --
425:
Consensus to move / No consensus / Consensus to not move
2114:
1467:
1462:
Failure to communcate pre-MR, and speedy closing the MR
1298:
1278:
1270:
1262:
1197:
1177:
1169:
1161:
1106:
1086:
1078:
1070:
950:
904:
540:
2109:
page clearly states that its purview is restricted to
658:
the fairest outcome would have been a relist so that
564:
Think that maybe there is more opinions come there.
2020:Nothing was deleted and this never involved a CfD.
1871:
Advertise at WT:CfD any formal category discussion.
756:
The nomination is fresh (it should be quickly done)
662:
about style in the RM and have them discussed fully
262:
Move title to pre-RM title and reopen and relist RM
1830:If no deletion occurred, or should have occurred,
1517:(b) the RM closer agrees to accede to the request.
414:Article Title Action at MRV Close (by MRV closer)
175:Article Title Action at MRV Close (by MRV closer)
327:Agree with you. BTW, the current table also has
1876:Knowledge (XXG):Move_review#World_Heritage_site
788:. (preferably state what you don't understand)
501:Move back to old title and reopen and relist RM
411:Article Title Action at RM Close (By RM Closer)
172:Article Title Action at RM Close (By RM Closer)
2232:Knowledge (XXG):Pseudo-deletion by redirection
854:I think it's often because they see the line "
780:Example minimal discussions with closers are:
682:For one, my views are pretty similar to Ben...
8:
1497:for the Move Review to be closed. I think:
1485:the important points in the RM discussion.
331:. The current table is also too dull to me.
2115:one example - Category:Limited-access roads
470:Closed or open and relisted as appropriate
231:Closed or Open and relisted as appropriate
2297:then its a question of deletion. If its a
784:Can you please elaborate on your close at
1939:Have you read and followed the advice at
401:
162:
1477:I wrote: "... I note that the closer,
1306:) (No discussion on closer's talk page)
2368:Do not edit the contents of this page.
1318:
1130:
1039:
1035:
657:
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
1896:I'd definitely say request review at
1748:Knowledge (XXG):Edit filter/Requested
1389:Looks good. Let’s see if it works. —
880:That's agreeable and has been done.
275:2601:183:101:58D0:6857:8FD9:8A96:84E9
91:Can you link the closes in question?
7:
2257:With CFD generally if it involves a
1679:Good idea. A slight variation is to
1511:close for either of the two reasons:
478:No consensus / Consensus to not move
442:No consensus / Consensus to not move
389:2601:183:101:58D0:1D8C:72FD:CC7A:135
2243:might seem to imply otherwise. --
1874:For practice, why don’t you go to
660:I could go back and make my points
24:
2353:
1746:I've requested such a filter at
1432:
29:
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Move review
1310:(reason for this move review)
1209:(reason for this move review)
1122:(reason for this move review)
428:Not moved / Moved to new title
1:
2339:21:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
2324:10:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
2253:05:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
2218:02:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
2196:14:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
2142:04:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
2128:21:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
2101:21:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
2084:19:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
2061:18:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
2045:16:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
2030:12:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
2016:06:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
2001:21:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
1987:20:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
1973:13:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
1957:12:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
1922:11:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
1888:12:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
1867:11:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
1852:06:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
1820:05:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
818:seems a superfluous step. —
1797:00:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
1761:01:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
1742:17:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
1726:17:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
1713:00:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
1692:00:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
1674:23:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
1643:23:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
1624:07:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
1590:03:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
1562:02:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
1547:00:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
1533:00:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
773:Any kind of interaction ban.
453:Open or closed as necessary
214:Open or Closed as necessary
2241:strength of opinions voiced
1456:07:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
1423:12:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
1399:12:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
1383:12:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
856:Knowledge (XXG):Move review
2391:
1834:might be less receptive.
1337:16:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
1232:18:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
1216:Suggestions are welcome.
1034:that adds two parameters,
960:Template:Move review links
417:Status of RM at MRV Close
178:Status of RM at MRV Close
1321:omitted or left blank).
998:05:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
973:01:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
942:19:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
932:is too much to hope for.
917:09:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
896:00:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
876:21:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
849:16:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
828:12:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
812:02:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
726:08:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
692:13:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
674:13:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
648:13:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
626:13:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
605:11:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
574:11:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
557:10:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
521:12:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
397:20:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
381:22:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
367:18:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
341:12:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
323:12:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
305:11:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
283:23:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
1029:Move review list/sandbox
146:15:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
127:06:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
101:06:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
86:05:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
1684:it can be continued. --
1658:think that would work?
699:Winged Blades of Godric
544:Winged Blades of Godric
64:The last two closes at
1116:Discussion with closer
481:Not moved to new title
445:Not moved to new title
2366:of past discussions.
1024:there is code in the
951:This bold improvement
905:this bold improvement
541:closed by a non-admin
156:Move review decisions
42:of past discussions.
1631:User:Paine Ellsworth
1490:User:Paine Ellsworth
742:User:Paine Ellsworth
484:Reopen and relist RM
245:Reopen and relist RM
740:In the current MR,
408:RM Closers Decision
169:RM Closers Decision
60:Supervote MR closes
866:might be helpful.
747:procedurally close
527:Non-admin closures
498:Moved to new title
464:Moved to new title
431:No action required
329:Not moved or moved
293:Not moved or moved
259:Moved to new title
225:Moved to New Title
192:No Action Required
189:Not moved or moved
186:Not moved or moved
2378:
2377:
2372:current talk page
1676:
1671:
1650:
1626:
1621:
1597:
1458:
1453:
1425:
1420:
1385:
1380:
1348:
1339:
1334:
1234:
1229:
1005:
898:
893:
874:
851:
846:
508:
507:
495:Consensus to move
461:Consensus to move
458:3. Overturn close
439:2. Overturn close
269:
268:
256:Move to new title
222:Move to new title
219:3. Overturn Close
200:2. Overturn Close
74:judicial activism
54:
53:
48:current talk page
2382:
2357:
2356:
2350:
2332:
2320:
2313:
2306:
2300:
2296:
2290:
2286:
2280:
2276:
2270:
2266:
2260:
2211:
2192:
2185:
2121:
2089:User:RGloucester
2077:
2073:are done here.
2038:
2009:
1754:
1735:
1672:
1668:
1664:
1656:
1648:
1622:
1618:
1614:
1603:
1595:
1454:
1450:
1446:
1440:
1436:
1435:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1381:
1377:
1373:
1366:
1346:
1335:
1331:
1327:
1320:
1301:
1281:
1273:
1265:
1247:
1230:
1226:
1222:
1200:
1180:
1172:
1164:
1146:
1132:
1109:
1089:
1081:
1073:
1055:
1041:
1040:|closer_section=
1037:
1033:
1027:
1023:
1003:
894:
890:
886:
870:
847:
843:
839:
702:
689:
671:
646:
644:
639:
638:Ben · Salvidrim!
624:
622:
617:
616:Ben · Salvidrim!
422:1. Endorse close
402:
311:WP:THREEOUTCOMES
183:1. Endorse Close
163:
33:
32:
26:
2390:
2389:
2385:
2384:
2383:
2381:
2380:
2379:
2354:
2330:
2318:
2311:
2304:
2298:
2294:
2288:
2284:
2278:
2274:
2268:
2264:
2258:
2201:
2190:
2183:
2119:
2075:
2036:
2007:
1807:
1752:
1733:
1663:Paine Ellsworth
1662:
1647:
1613:Paine Ellsworth
1612:
1594:
1507:, an immediate
1464:
1445:Paine Ellsworth
1444:
1433:
1431:
1412:Paine Ellsworth
1411:
1372:Paine Ellsworth
1371:
1345:
1326:Paine Ellsworth
1325:
1312:
1297:
1296:
1290:
1284:
1277:
1276:
1269:
1268:
1261:
1260:
1241:
1221:Paine Ellsworth
1220:
1211:
1196:
1195:
1189:
1183:
1176:
1175:
1168:
1167:
1160:
1159:
1140:
1124:
1105:
1104:
1098:
1092:
1085:
1084:
1077:
1076:
1069:
1068:
1049:
1031:
1025:
1002:
885:Paine Ellsworth
884:
838:Paine Ellsworth
837:
738:
696:
684:
666:
642:
637:
635:
620:
615:
613:
593:User:S Marshall
529:
158:
62:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2388:
2386:
2376:
2375:
2358:
2348:
2347:
2346:
2345:
2344:
2343:
2342:
2341:
2236:
2227:
2169:
2168:
2167:
2166:
2165:
2164:
2163:
2162:
2161:
2160:
2159:
2158:
2157:
2156:
2155:
2154:
2153:
2152:
2151:
2150:
2149:
2148:
2147:
2146:
2145:
2144:
1937:
1933:
1932:
1925:
1924:
1894:
1893:
1892:
1891:
1890:
1872:
1836:WP:Move review
1827:
1826:
1806:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1799:
1779:
1778:
1777:
1776:
1775:
1774:
1773:
1772:
1771:
1770:
1769:
1768:
1767:
1766:
1765:
1764:
1763:
1577:
1576:
1565:
1564:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1515:
1512:
1509:WP:Move review
1463:
1460:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1402:
1401:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1308:
1307:
1294:
1288:
1282:
1274:
1266:
1258:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1207:
1206:
1193:
1187:
1181:
1173:
1165:
1157:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1120:
1119:
1102:
1096:
1090:
1082:
1074:
1066:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1000:
986:
955:
954:
947:
946:
945:
944:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
793:
792:
789:
775:
774:
771:
768:
761:
760:
757:
754:
737:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
677:
676:
653:
652:
651:
650:
629:
628:
608:
607:
579:
578:
577:
576:
528:
525:
524:
523:
506:
505:
502:
499:
496:
493:
489:
488:
485:
482:
479:
476:
472:
471:
468:
465:
462:
459:
455:
454:
451:
449:
446:
443:
440:
436:
435:
432:
429:
426:
423:
419:
418:
415:
412:
409:
406:
400:
399:
385:
384:
383:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
273:
267:
266:
263:
260:
257:
254:
250:
249:
246:
243:
240:
237:
233:
232:
229:
226:
223:
220:
216:
215:
212:
210:
207:
204:
201:
197:
196:
193:
190:
187:
184:
180:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
157:
154:
153:
152:
151:
150:
149:
148:
115:
109:
61:
58:
56:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2387:
2373:
2369:
2365:
2364:
2359:
2352:
2351:
2340:
2337:
2333:
2327:
2326:
2325:
2321:
2315:
2314:
2312:Crouch, Swale
2303:
2293:
2283:
2273:
2263:
2256:
2255:
2254:
2250:
2246:
2242:
2237:
2233:
2228:
2225:
2221:
2220:
2219:
2216:
2209:
2208:Crouch, Swale
2205:
2200:
2199:
2198:
2197:
2193:
2187:
2186:
2184:Crouch, Swale
2179:
2175:
2143:
2139:
2135:
2131:
2130:
2129:
2126:
2122:
2116:
2112:
2108:
2104:
2103:
2102:
2098:
2094:
2090:
2087:
2086:
2085:
2082:
2078:
2072:
2068:
2064:
2063:
2062:
2058:
2054:
2050:
2049:
2048:
2047:
2046:
2043:
2039:
2033:
2032:
2031:
2027:
2023:
2019:
2018:
2017:
2014:
2010:
2004:
2003:
2002:
1998:
1994:
1990:
1989:
1988:
1984:
1980:
1976:
1975:
1974:
1970:
1966:
1962:
1960:
1959:
1958:
1954:
1950:
1946:
1942:
1938:
1935:
1934:
1930:
1927:
1926:
1923:
1919:
1915:
1911:
1907:
1903:
1899:
1895:
1889:
1885:
1881:
1877:
1873:
1870:
1869:
1868:
1864:
1860:
1855:
1854:
1853:
1849:
1845:
1841:
1837:
1833:
1829:
1828:
1824:
1823:
1822:
1821:
1817:
1813:
1804:
1798:
1795:
1792:
1788:
1784:
1780:
1762:
1759:
1755:
1749:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1740:
1736:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1724:
1721:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1710:
1706:
1702:
1698:
1695:
1694:
1693:
1690:
1687:
1682:
1678:
1677:
1675:
1670:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1654:
1646:
1645:
1644:
1640:
1636:
1632:
1628:
1627:
1625:
1620:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1607:
1601:
1593:
1592:
1591:
1587:
1583:
1579:
1578:
1574:
1570:
1567:
1566:
1563:
1559:
1555:
1550:
1549:
1548:
1545:
1542:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1530:
1526:
1516:
1513:
1510:
1506:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1496:
1491:
1486:
1482:
1480:
1475:
1473:
1469:
1466:Following my
1461:
1459:
1457:
1452:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1439:
1424:
1419:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1400:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1384:
1379:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1364:
1360:
1356:
1352:
1338:
1333:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1311:
1305:
1300:
1293:
1287:
1280:
1272:
1264:
1257:
1253:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1246:
1245:
1233:
1228:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1210:
1204:
1199:
1192:
1186:
1179:
1171:
1163:
1156:
1152:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1145:
1144:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1123:
1117:
1113:
1108:
1101:
1095:
1088:
1080:
1072:
1065:
1061:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1054:
1053:
1030:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1001:
999:
995:
991:
987:
984:
980:
976:
975:
974:
970:
966:
961:
957:
956:
952:
949:
948:
943:
939:
935:
931:
926:
918:
914:
910:
906:
903:
900:
899:
897:
892:
889:
888:
887:
879:
878:
877:
873:
869:
865:
861:
857:
853:
852:
850:
845:
842:
841:
840:
831:
830:
829:
825:
821:
816:
815:
814:
813:
809:
805:
801:
796:
790:
787:
783:
782:
781:
778:
772:
769:
766:
765:
764:
758:
755:
752:
751:
750:
748:
743:
735:
727:
723:
719:
715:
711:
706:
700:
695:
694:
693:
690:
688:
687:Winged Blades
681:
680:
679:
678:
675:
672:
670:
669:Winged Blades
663:
661:
655:
654:
649:
645:
640:
633:
632:
631:
630:
627:
623:
618:
610:
609:
606:
602:
598:
594:
589:
585:
581:
580:
575:
571:
567:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
554:
550:
545:
542:
538:
533:
526:
522:
518:
514:
510:
509:
503:
500:
497:
494:
491:
490:
486:
483:
480:
477:
474:
473:
469:
466:
463:
460:
457:
456:
452:
447:
444:
441:
438:
437:
433:
430:
427:
424:
421:
420:
416:
413:
410:
407:
404:
403:
398:
394:
390:
386:
382:
378:
374:
370:
369:
368:
364:
360:
355:
351:
348:
342:
338:
334:
330:
326:
325:
324:
320:
316:
312:
308:
307:
306:
302:
298:
294:
290:
287:
286:
285:
284:
280:
276:
264:
261:
258:
255:
252:
251:
247:
244:
241:
238:
235:
234:
230:
227:
224:
221:
218:
217:
213:
208:
205:
202:
199:
198:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
181:
177:
174:
171:
168:
165:
164:
161:
155:
147:
143:
139:
135:
130:
129:
128:
124:
120:
116:
114:
110:
108:
104:
103:
102:
98:
94:
90:
89:
88:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:WP:Supervotes
67:
59:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
2367:
2361:
2331:RGloucester
2309:
2224:Black Falcon
2215:Black Falcon
2181:
2170:
2120:RGloucester
2076:RGloucester
2037:RGloucester
2008:RGloucester
1945:WP:badgering
1808:
1786:
1782:
1753:RGloucester
1734:RGloucester
1696:
1680:
1660:
1659:
1629:I'm afraid,
1610:
1609:
1522:
1487:
1483:
1476:
1465:
1442:
1441:
1437:
1430:
1409:
1408:
1369:
1368:
1344:
1323:
1322:
1309:
1242:
1240:
1218:
1217:
1208:
1141:
1139:
1121:
1050:
1048:
982:
978:
929:
901:
882:
881:
835:
834:
800:WP:Etiquette
797:
794:
786:talk:article
779:
776:
762:
746:
739:
705:TonyBallioni
686:
668:
659:
534:
530:
405:MRV Decision
353:
349:
328:
292:
288:
270:
166:MRV Decision
159:
63:
55:
43:
37:
2360:This is an
710:WP:DEADLINE
373:BarrelProof
359:BarrelProof
36:This is an
1252:WP:Example
1244:WP:Example
1151:WP:Example
1143:WP:Example
1060:WP:Example
1052:WP:Example
2245:SmokeyJoe
2204:SmokeyJoe
2178:searching
2134:SmokeyJoe
2093:SmokeyJoe
1979:SmokeyJoe
1949:SmokeyJoe
1918:pingó mió
1914:Galobtter
1880:SmokeyJoe
1844:SmokeyJoe
1705:SmokeyJoe
1653:SmokeyJoe
1635:SmokeyJoe
1600:SmokeyJoe
1582:SmokeyJoe
1554:SmokeyJoe
1525:SmokeyJoe
1391:SmokeyJoe
1351:SmokeyJoe
1008:SmokeyJoe
965:SmokeyJoe
958:Perhaps,
930:satisfied
804:SmokeyJoe
597:SmokeyJoe
492:5. Relist
475:4. Relist
315:SmokeyJoe
253:5. Relist
242:Not Moved
239:Not Moved
236:4. Relist
206:Not Moved
203:Not Moved
119:SmokeyJoe
111:1st last
105:2nd last
78:SmokeyJoe
2053:Springee
2022:Springee
1993:Springee
1965:Springee
1941:WP:RENOM
1859:Springee
1812:Springee
1359:Dekimasu
1349:editors
1319:|closer=
1131:|closer=
1036:|closer=
1016:Dekimasu
1006:editors
868:Dekimasu
588:WP:RMNAC
291:What is
138:Dicklyon
93:Dicklyon
2363:archive
2235:review.
2174:example
1701:WP:RfCl
1681:require
1651:editor
1598:editor
1573:WP:RfCl
1363:Andrewa
1355:Amakuru
1292:archive
1271:history
1191:archive
1170:history
1129:If the
1100:archive
1079:history
1020:Andrewa
1012:Amakuru
990:Andrewa
934:Andrewa
909:Andrewa
902:Support
820:Amakuru
718:Amakuru
549:Amakuru
434:Closed
350:Comment
289:Comment
195:Closed
39:archive
2111:WP:RMs
2071:WP:RMs
2067:WP:DRV
1910:WP:CFD
1906:WP:RMs
1902:WP:MRV
1898:WP:DRV
1840:WT:CfD
1832:WP:DRV
1787:Talk:B
1697:Oppose
584:WP:NAC
566:Hhkohh
537:WP:IAR
513:Hhkohh
333:Hhkohh
297:Hhkohh
272:close.
136:case.
2287:or a
2107:WP:MR
1703:. --
1299:watch
1286:links
1198:watch
1185:links
1107:watch
1094:links
864:WP:RM
860:WP:RM
714:Kshmr
504:Open
487:Open
265:Open
248:Open
134:Incel
66:WP:MR
16:<
2319:talk
2249:talk
2206:and
2191:talk
2138:talk
2097:talk
2057:talk
2026:talk
1997:talk
1983:talk
1969:talk
1953:talk
1884:talk
1863:talk
1848:talk
1816:talk
1783:move
1709:talk
1639:talk
1586:talk
1558:talk
1529:talk
1468:post
1438:Done
1395:talk
1361:and
1279:logs
1263:edit
1256:talk
1178:logs
1162:edit
1155:talk
1087:logs
1071:edit
1064:talk
1038:and
1018:and
994:talk
969:talk
938:talk
913:talk
824:talk
808:talk
722:talk
601:talk
570:talk
553:talk
517:talk
393:talk
377:talk
363:talk
337:talk
319:talk
301:talk
279:talk
142:talk
123:talk
97:talk
82:talk
68:are
2322:)
2302:Cfr
2292:Cfl
2282:Cfs
2272:Cfm
2262:Cfd
2222:Hi
2194:)
1947:. —
1842:. —
1791:В²C
1720:В²C
1686:В²C
1606:В²C
1569:В²C
1541:В²C
1479:В²C
1470:at
1302:) (
1201:) (
1114:) (
1110:) (
983:not
979:not
2334:—
2305:}}
2299:{{
2295:}}
2289:{{
2285:}}
2279:{{
2277:,
2275:}}
2269:{{
2267:,
2265:}}
2259:{{
2251:)
2140:)
2123:—
2099:)
2079:—
2059:)
2040:—
2028:)
2011:—
1999:)
1985:)
1971:)
1955:)
1920:)
1912:.
1900:.
1886:)
1865:)
1850:)
1818:)
1756:—
1737:—
1718:--
1711:)
1649:To
1641:)
1596:To
1588:)
1560:)
1531:)
1397:)
1357:,
1353:,
1347:To
1304:RM
1203:RM
1112:RM
1032:}}
1026:{{
1014:,
1010:,
1004:To
996:)
971:)
940:)
915:)
872:よ!
826:)
810:)
724:)
685:~
667:~
603:)
572:)
555:)
519:)
395:)
379:)
365:)
352::
339:)
321:)
303:)
281:)
144:)
125:)
99:)
84:)
2374:.
2336:☎
2316:(
2247:(
2210::
2202:@
2188:(
2172:(
2136:(
2125:☎
2095:(
2081:☎
2055:(
2042:☎
2024:(
2013:☎
1995:(
1981:(
1967:(
1951:(
1931:?
1916:(
1882:(
1861:(
1846:(
1814:(
1794:☎
1758:☎
1739:☎
1723:☎
1707:(
1689:☎
1655::
1637:(
1602::
1584:(
1556:(
1544:☎
1527:(
1393:(
1365::
1295:|
1289:|
1283:|
1275:|
1267:|
1259:|
1254:(
1205:)
1194:|
1188:|
1182:|
1174:|
1166:|
1158:|
1153:(
1118:)
1103:|
1097:|
1091:|
1083:|
1075:|
1067:|
1062:(
1022::
992:(
967:(
936:(
911:(
822:(
806:(
745:"
720:(
701::
697:@
643:✉
621:✉
599:(
568:(
551:(
515:(
391:(
375:(
361:(
357:—
335:(
317:(
299:(
277:(
140:(
121:(
117:—
95:(
80:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.