Misplaced Pages

:Closure requests: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:44, 22 August 2013 editBDD (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators111,936 editsm formatting error← Previous edit Revision as of 19:39, 22 August 2013 edit undoSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits →Requests for closure: Talk:Chelsea Manning#Requested move in seven daysNext edit →
Line 37: Line 37:
</noinclude> </noinclude>
{{seealso|Misplaced Pages:Requested moves|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion}} {{seealso|Misplaced Pages:Requested moves|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion}}

===]===
I'd like to ask that an admin who has had no involvement with this article, either as admin or editor – including no one who has expressed a view on the issue – oversee and get ready to close this RM in seven days. It involves the statement from Bradley Manning today that she regards herself as female and wishes to be known as Chelsea Manning.

The article was moved back and forth without discussion from ] to ], and there is now an RM to move it back again. It's likely to be a contentious move involving balancing consensus and the applicable policies and guidelines. Several admins have already been involved today (with the moves or protection) and strong views have been expressed, so to save trouble in future, I've that an entirely uninvolved admin agree to close the move, and I'm posting here in the hope that someone will step forward to do that. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


===]=== ===]===

Revision as of 19:39, 22 August 2013

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Archiving icon
    Archives
    Index
    Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
    Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
    Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
    Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
    Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
    Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18
    Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21
    Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24
    Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27
    Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30
    Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33
    Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36
    Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39

    This page has archives. Sections older than 40 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
    Shortcuts

    The Requests for closure noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Misplaced Pages. Formal closure by an uninvolved editor or administrator should be requested where consensus remains unclear, where the issue is a contentious one, or where there are wiki-wide implications.

    Please note that most discussions do not need formal closure. Where consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion, provided the discussion has been open long enough for a consensus to form. The default length of an RfC is 30 days; where consensus becomes clear before that and discussion is not ongoing, the discussion can be closed earlier, although it should not be closed sooner than one week except in the case of WP:SNOW.

    Please ensure that your request here for a close is neutrally worded, and do not use this board to continue the discussion in question. If there is disagreement with a particular closure, do not dispute it here. You can start discussion at the original page or request a Closure review at Administrators' noticeboard with a link to the discussion page and the policy-based reason you believe the closure should be overturned.

    Notes about closing

    Because requests for closure made here are often those that are the most contentious, closing these discussions can be a significant responsibility. Closers should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion. All closers should be prepared to fully discuss the closure rationale with any editors who have questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that those editors may have.

    A request for comment discussed how to appeal closures and whether an administrator can summarily overturn a non-administrator's closure. The consensus was that closures should not be reverted solely because the closer was not an administrator. However, special considerations apply for articles for deletion and move discussions—see Misplaced Pages:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions and Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Closing instructions for details.

    Requests for closure

    See also: Misplaced Pages:Requested moves and Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion

    Talk:Chelsea Manning#Requested move

    I'd like to ask that an admin who has had no involvement with this article, either as admin or editor – including no one who has expressed a view on the issue – oversee and get ready to close this RM in seven days. It involves the statement from Bradley Manning today that she regards herself as female and wishes to be known as Chelsea Manning.

    The article was moved back and forth without discussion from Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning, and there is now an RM to move it back again. It's likely to be a contentious move involving balancing consensus and the applicable policies and guidelines. Several admins have already been involved today (with the moves or protection) and strong views have been expressed, so to save trouble in future, I've suggested on AN/I that an entirely uninvolved admin agree to close the move, and I'm posting here in the hope that someone will step forward to do that. SlimVirgin 19:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

    Wikipedia_talk:Article Incubator#Proposal to mark as historical

    Hasn't quite been a month, but discussion has slowed down considerably. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

    Actually, I'm trippin. I looked at the wrong timestamp, it has been almost two months and no new comments are coming in. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    The last activity on the RfC when this was posted was on the 20th of july. Not even one month. Since then participation has increased and !votes are still coming in. As such I think that it should be left open for a bit longer until this latest surge passes. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 00:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    Looks to me like the RfC was opened on 14 July, so RfCbot should be removing the tag shortly. I think it's best in this case to wait the entire 30 days. Cheers. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    Actually, I believe you are making the same mistake I did, it was in fact opened on June 25 so I'm not sure why it took so long for the bot to remove the tag, probably the same thing that confused both of us. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

    NFCR discussion

    WP:NFCR#Bradley Joseph needs closed. Werieth (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

    Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#WP:PDAB

    Rather complex RfC that could benefit from a formal closure. The discussion appears to have died down since the end of July. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 12

    open for over a month. Frietjes (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

    now all closed. thank you Plastikspork. Frietjes (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 13

    open for over a month. Frietjes (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

    Two connected ones at Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates

    These are closely related. Please could they be closed together? --Stfg (talk) 08:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Files_for_deletion/2013_July_25

    Most of these discussions have not been modified in over two weeks and yet remain unclosed. Could an admin step in and perform the appropriate actions? Taylor Trescott - + my edits 15:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

    Comment Now only Misplaced Pages:Files_for_deletion/2013_July_25#File:WilliamDavidSanders.jpg is open. Armbrust 13:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

    WP:ANI#Request swift admin intervention to prevent further disruption to the Jesus article by User Strangesad

    The discussion has been going on for a while. I think it's time to close this.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

    It's a subsection of WP:ANI#Preempting discussion of Jesus. Could the whole section be closed at once, please? --Stfg (talk) 08:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
     Done - jc37 00:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 27

    open for over a month, including the relistings. Frietjes (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 28

    open for several weeks. Frietjes (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:Magick#Proposing a couple of significant changes

    Bot just removed the RFC tag but the discussion itself hasn't been closed. Any chance we could get an uninvolved admin to interpret a consensus and do the necessary functional stuff? Not particularly controversial, I don't think. Cheers, Stalwart111 14:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

    WT:NCIN

    Unopposed RfC on promoting a draft naming convention to guideline. Ran 40 days. (As nom.) LeadSongDog come howl! 15:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

     Not done. I'm not entirely sure this requires a close. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 12:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    Agree it's not required by policy, but I'd prefer not to close it myself to avoid injecting any hint of biased process. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    I looked at closing this, but I'm a bit worried about moving something to be a guideline with as sparse attendance as this has had. I realize it's a very specialized topic so attendance will necessarily be small, but was this widely advertised to all Wikiproject(s) that might be interested? Hobit (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
    WP:SILENCE would seem to apply here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
    Yeah, it's the "weakest form of consensus". I think we should have something stronger when it comes to making something a guideline. YMMV and I certainly wouldn't object to someone closing this as successful. I personally just don't know enough about the topic area to know if the right folks were notified or if this discussion was in effect a walled garden. Hobit (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
     Done It was an RFC, so that automatically notifies a large part of the community (or at least anyone who watches RFC pages), and it was also notified on a few relevant notice boards. I've closed as promote. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zbečník stream

    Nominator has withdrawn, no outstanding delete !votes. Ansh666 06:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

     Done StAnselm (talk) 06:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:Jesse James (song)#Requested move

    Not an especially controversial RM, but I'd appreciate a timely close so I can begin with the cleanup it will entail. --BDD (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

     Closed by Favonian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust 13:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:Prince George of Cambridge#RfC: Bullet point in the "title and style" section

    The RfC has gone for three weeks, with no comments for the last week. The consensus at Talk:Prince George of Cambridge#What course is left to be run in that lame RfC? is that it is time to close it. StAnselm (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:Skyfall#RfC on plot summary

    This has gone on for three weeks, with only one comment in the last week. That most recent comment was along the lines of most (we're pretty much in a WP:SNOW situation here, with only two editors taking an stance "against" the status quo. I filed the RfC and suspect that if I am the one to close it, I may be accused of being too involved and trying to force an early close. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/RfC_2013

    Gone on for >30 days, consensus is pretty clear for the two added proposals, consensus is not present for the other part, so a summary of ideas would be the best idea probably. ~Charmlet 22:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:Flickr#RfC: Weight given to redesign

    A straightforward 14-day poll asking editors to select one of four possible wordings for a section has now been open for 14 days. --McGeddon (talk) 09:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 July 27

    Both of the remaining entries here appear to be ready for a close. --BDD (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)