Without addressing your issue specifically, let me explain how the process works.
If someone submits a category move request for a site that is already listed, what often happens is that one editor handles the first part of the request by delisting the site in question and putting in the pool of unreviewed sites in the requested category. Later (an hour, a week, a month, three years) another editor (or even the same editor) works in the pool of unreviewed sites for the requested category, and then re-reviews the site, and if appropriate, relists it.
But, someone is probably screaming at their monitor, why can't you guys just do then whole thing?
Well, sometimes we can, sometimes we cannot, but usually we don't. If editor A has permissions in the old category, they can handle the first part. They may not have permissions in the new category, so they do what they can and move on to other editing tasks. Even if editor A has permissoins in both cateogry, editor A may choose to handle the process in a multi-step fashion. I edit this way. As a matter of personal policy, I never cross-list a site (working in one category and list a site in another category). I always move the site into the unreviewed pool and only list sites within the category where i am working. I do this because I have much more control over the quality of my work, and I make fewer errors. Since a re-review is always part of a move, it is important to me that I not cross-list a site.
The issue becomes even more significant the further the site is being moved. While we do have a very good and very broad set of editing guidelines, there are often differences at the category, or branch level with how sites are dealt with. It may be because of a fundamental difference, or it may be a sanctioned experiment. Regardless, even an editor with very broad permissions may not be up to speed on all the nuances in every category, so the wise move it to put it in teh pool of unreviewed sites, rather than make a listing error.
The good news is that when an editor looks at a given pool of unreviewed sites, the editor immediately knows which sites were added to the pool by another editor, and which ones just came across the transom. Many editors will look at the sites handled by another editor before they dive into the pool of raw suggestions.
Once someone submits an update/move request, and sees tht some action has been taken, any further suggestions to the same effect are simply diectory spam. They interfere with us doing our job, and jeopardize the listing. Many editors use a very broad brush when sweeping out bad submissions and it is very easy, when getting rid of the fifth duplicate submission from Acme Tool & Die, to mistakenly get rid of all the suggestions, including the one that is presumably valid and should have been left behind.
