I agree that there wasn't a clear consensus on the Perth moves, but simply saying that there wasn't a clear consensus doesn't sound very impartial to me. Perhaps "in spite of what opponents said was a lack of a clear consensus"? Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree with Nyttend's suggestion. The current wording is clearly not impartial. Jenks24 (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you check the RM itself, it was almost 50/50 either way, so there wasn't clear consensus for or against the move, therefore, it should have been closed as no consensus rather than as "moved". James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 5:54pm • 07:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you know this already, but RMs are definitely not vote counts, so even if a RM is split 50/50 there can still be clear consensus (and it was actually more like 60/40, but *shrug*). As can be seen by the move review there are plenty of editors not involved in the discussion who think the close was acceptable. Clearly you have an opinion on the close, but this sort of editorialising is really not acceptable, especially in the arbitration report. I'm going to ping the editor about this. Jenks24 (talk) 08:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the matter, please keep assumptions out of this, I was merely stating that from casual observation that it appeared to be no-consensus. If this offends you, I'll happily change it. James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:16pm • 11:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I've made a fuss about this and perhaps my comment above was more strongly worded than it needed to be. To be clear, though, a statement like "there wasn't clear consensus for or against the move" is an opinion. Jenks24 (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Although Jenks24 participated in the RM (in support of a move) and subsequently in the MRV (endorsing the move & RM close made by JHunterJ), several editors who have (or by their own admission, would have) voted in support of a move, found that there was no consensus supporting JHunterJ's actions. In that context, I don't think the suggestion of 'opponents' would have been any more accurate, if it were considered appropriate (also, their bolded remarks in the MRV don't talk about a mere lack of clarity). What is unambiguous is that several users came to a view that the move/close was not supported by consensus and this has (in large part) given rise to the examination during arbitration, so I've made an amendment to that effect in the interim. If James or The Ed have a problem with the substance of the edit, they can tweak further. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your wording is clearly better than what I suggested. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Works for me. Let's not tar and feather the reporter, though – he called it as he saw it, with no ill intent intended. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Ncm, I agree with the edit you made to the report and the majority of your comment here. Ed, yes I understand and am grateful to the Signpost editors who do a tough and often thankless job. If any of my comments implied ill intent on James's part, I apologise unreservedly. Jenks24 (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That's fine, I do see what you are saying and I understand. No harm done. James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 5:34pm • 07:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The whole thing should be rewritten with the case focus, not Ncmvocalist's subsequent focus. The case is about wheel warring, not the suitability of the new move review forum. But the RM wasn't 50/50, the move review upheld the consensus (consensus of the editors & applicable guidelines), the new RM was even less 50/50, and no one "found" there was no consensus, although several editors opined that they disagreed with that conclusion. Unless by "found" you mean "thought". -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, the case has almost nothing to do with the suitability of move review or how terrible JHunterJ's original close was; the way it is worded now really gives the wrong idea. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed. The move review process, in fact, isn't even within the scope of the current case. The sole thing being considered are the actions which took place *after* the initial move (noting that it's since been through Move review and then another RM which basically endorsed the original close.) Orderinchaos 19:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]