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 01:32, 21 December 2014 editFormerIP (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers17,570 edits →Misplaced Pages talk:In the news/Archive 50#Main Page ITN picture location: done← Previous edit Revision as of 01:55, 21 December 2014 edit undoRGloucester (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers38,757 edits →Talk:Cultural Marxism#Re-proposal: procedural errorNext edit →
Line 70: Line 70:
::It is a valid complaint, given that the discussion was explicitly reopened by Mr Wales because he objected to non-administrator closure. It is quite clear that you are not familiar with the peculiar nature of this particular discussion, and the Wales intrigue involved. ] — ] 23:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC) ::It is a valid complaint, given that the discussion was explicitly reopened by Mr Wales because he objected to non-administrator closure. It is quite clear that you are not familiar with the peculiar nature of this particular discussion, and the Wales intrigue involved. ] — ] 23:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
:::No it isn't valid. It wouldn't matter if the Pope had got involved. It's settled policy that you cannot summarily overturn a good-faith close of an RfC/talkpage discussion, particularly if your only reason is that a non-admin did it. If you feel there is something wrong with the close, take the matter to AN. That's what you're supposed to do. ] (]) 23:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC) :::No it isn't valid. It wouldn't matter if the Pope had got involved. It's settled policy that you cannot summarily overturn a good-faith close of an RfC/talkpage discussion, particularly if your only reason is that a non-admin did it. If you feel there is something wrong with the close, take the matter to AN. That's what you're supposed to do. ] (]) 23:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
::::It is valid, given the peculiar nature of this case. In any other case, I'd agree with you. In this case, where my non-administrator closure was overturned by Mr Wales for this express reason, we cannot follow through on the same procedural error. ] — ] 01:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


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

Revision as of 01:55, 21 December 2014

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.

    Many discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed here.

    Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion. The default length of a formal request for closure is 30 days (opened on or before 12 December 2024); if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed early. However, editors usually wait at least a week after an RfC opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion.

    If consensus is unclear, then post a neutral request here for assistance.

    Please ensure that your request for a close is brief and neutrally worded. Please include a link to the discussion. Do not use this board to continue the discussion in question. Be prepared to wait for someone to review the discussion. If you disagree 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. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive for previous closure reviews.

    Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

    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.

    Once a discussion listed on this page has been closed, please add {{Close}} or {{Done}} and a note to the request here, after which the request will be archived.

    Requests for closure

    See also: Misplaced Pages:Requested moves § Backlog, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old, Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion, Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure, Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion § Old discussions, Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion § Old discussions, Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files § Holding cell, and Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion § Old business

    Talk:Cultural Marxism#Re-proposal

    A previously closed and then reopened request to merge/redirect this article somewhere. Requires a thoughtful and ironskinned admin. Note involvement of "GamerGate" and Jimbo. Hipocrite (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

    A non-administrator attempted to close this discussion, but it has been reverted. Please note that no non-administrator should be closing this discussion as dictated by the controversial nature of it, and because of previous accusations of procedural failure. It would be nice if some administrator would pop in and make a determination. RGloucester — ☎ 17:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    Not exactly. Whoever closes this should read the old discussion, which opened in October. That discussion was reopened by Mr Wales, 11 days ago as said by Mr 13. RGloucester — ☎ 17:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    Edit: It seems someone has hidden the old discussion in an archive. I'll provide the link here. RGloucester — ☎ 17:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    It was actually on October 29, 2014, here. Dave Dial (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

    If this close has been reverted by a single editor purely and solely on the basis that the close was not an admin, the close should be re-instated. The closer was not a rookie, and admins do not receive any special training in closing discussions and it is never permissible to just revert a close without discussion. Per policy here. the admin status of the closer is not a valid complaint. If it's a bad close, complain at WP:AN.

    It's not clear to me whether this was a formal RfC, but if so then the close was premature, because an RfC runs from when it was opened, not from when some other archived discussion was opened. In that case, though, you need to wait for the 30 days to end. Formerip (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

    It is a valid complaint, given that the discussion was explicitly reopened by Mr Wales because he objected to non-administrator closure. It is quite clear that you are not familiar with the peculiar nature of this particular discussion, and the Wales intrigue involved. RGloucester — ☎ 23:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
    No it isn't valid. It wouldn't matter if the Pope had got involved. It's settled policy that you cannot summarily overturn a good-faith close of an RfC/talkpage discussion, particularly if your only reason is that a non-admin did it. If you feel there is something wrong with the close, take the matter to AN. That's what you're supposed to do. Formerip (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
    It is valid, given the peculiar nature of this case. In any other case, I'd agree with you. In this case, where my non-administrator closure was overturned by Mr Wales for this express reason, we cannot follow through on the same procedural error. RGloucester — ☎ 01:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Ayurveda

    New sanctions have been placed,(see Talk:Ayurveda#Update) further discussion seems to be unnecessary. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

    The discussion is now at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive266#Ayurveda. Cunard (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 61#RfC

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 61#RfC (Initiated 3732 days ago on 24 October 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Which of the following formats for presenting late-night anime air times should be followed?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Hi-5 (Australian band)#RfC: Reorganize band members section

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hi-5 (Australian band)#RfC: Reorganize band members section (Initiated 3734 days ago on 22 October 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the Band members section be simplified to just show current and former members, with members' reasons for leaving and successions to be expanded upon in the band's History section?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/BASC reform 2014

    Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/BASC reform 2014 (Initiated 3741 days ago on 15 October 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the community adopt the changes to the makeup and procedures of the Ban Appeals Subcommittee proposed below?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

    • I've read through parts of this proposal a few times, and think that since there are many different sections on different questions, each section should be closed separately. I could really use some help on this, anyone? — {{U|Technical 13}} 13:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    I think this one is best left to one or more uninvolved admins. I think you'd be making a rod for own back trying to close this one. Bellerophon talk to me 01:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Bellerophon, I think it needs to be closed by more than one editor regardless of whether or not they are admins. I do agree there should be at least one admin in the group however, which is why I'm waiting for help before I really start digging in. You interested in helping with it? — {{U|Technical 13}} 01:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    • This proposal would best be closed by more than one editor to make sure the closing is accurate and properly worded. I'm thinking there should be 3-5 closers involved in the close. If you are interested on helping with this close, please add your signature to the list below:
      1. — {{U|Technical 13}} 20:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#RFC close review Talk:2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq#Iran, Hezbollah Reaction to American-led intervention in Iraq

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#RFC close review Talk:2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq#Iran, Hezbollah Reaction to American-led intervention in Iraq (Initiated 3717 days ago on 8 November 2014) after there has been sufficient discussion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive266#iBan suggested

    Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive266#iBan suggested (Initiated 3707 days ago on 18 November 2014)? Relevant discussions: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive862#User:Ryulong, cannot be stopped breaking rules and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive862#RTG. If there is a consensus for an interaction ban, please add the interaction ban to Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive863#Ryulong accuses me of threatening him, WP:CONDUCT issues

    Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive863#Ryulong accuses me of threatening him, WP:CONDUCT issues (Initiated 3707 days ago on 18 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Electronic cigarette#Vapor, Mist, & Aerosol RFC

    Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Electronic cigarette#Vapor, Mist, & Aerosol RFC (Initiated 3710 days ago on 15 November 2014)? SPACKlick (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

    Would a experienced uninvolved editor please close this. discussion and responses stopped about a week ago. The issue is very contentious on the page and only one part of a multi question RFC appears to have a clear answer though the response to others may help. Thanks. AlbinoFerret 14:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

    {{Initiated|18 November 2014}} — {{U|Technical 13}} 00:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

    That needs to be corrected, I started the RFC, on the 15th of November diff AlbinoFerret 14:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Move review/Log/2014 November

    These discussion must be closed, but I want someone who knows how to use {{subst:MRV top}} and {{subst:MRV bottom}}. --George Ho (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 27

    I would close these, but I am closing too many of them. However, I can provide procedural help for anyone who is unfamiliar with how to close discussions and would like to help with closing. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ 22:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29

    I would close these, but I am closing too many of them. However, I can provide procedural help for anyone who is unfamiliar with how to close discussions and would like to help with closing. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ 22:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 18#RfC on summarizing the most prominent statements in existing MEDRSs' conclusions

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 18#RfC on summarizing the most prominent statements in existing MEDRSs' conclusions (Initiated 3718 days ago on 7 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Inter-civil war violence in Libya#Rewrite lede? and Talk:Inter-civil war violence in Libya#Current title

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Inter-civil war violence in Libya#Rewrite lede? (Initiated 3712 days ago on 13 November 2014) and Talk:Inter-civil war violence in Libya#Current title (Initiated 3711 days ago on 14 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:United States#RFC on Scope of United States

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States#RFC on Scope of United States (Initiated 3717 days ago on 8 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Songs for the Deaf#Songs for the Deaf is what musical genres? RFC

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Songs for the Deaf#Songs for the Deaf is what musical genres? RFC (Initiated 3720 days ago on 5 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Prostitution in South Korea#Reverted removal of the Japanese sex tourists in South Korea section

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Prostitution in South Korea#Reverted removal of the Japanese sex tourists in South Korea section (Initiated 3726 days ago on 30 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:List of academic ranks#Request for comment: Splitting the academic rank topics

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of academic ranks#Request for comment: Splitting the academic rank topics (Initiated 3722 days ago on 3 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

    Category talk:Chronological summaries of the Olympics#Request for Comment: Where do Chronological Summaries fit in Misplaced Pages

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Category talk:Chronological summaries of the Olympics#Request for Comment: Where do Chronological Summaries fit in Misplaced Pages (Initiated 3721 days ago on 4 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Administrative Standards Commission#RfC: Should Requests for Adminship be supplemented or replaced by an elected committee?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Administrative Standards Commission#RfC: Should Requests for Adminship be supplemented or replaced by an elected committee? (Initiated 3726 days ago on 30 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

    Given that the discussion seems to have largely moved on on that page and there's a fresh RfC started to continue the discussion, I'm not sure this needs an official close. Sam Walton (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
    I agree with your assessment. I withdraw this RfC closure request. Cunard (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:In the news/Archive 50#Main Page ITN picture location

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Misplaced Pages talk:In the news/Archive 50#Main Page ITN picture location (Initiated 3737 days ago on 19 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

    I'm not sure this really needed a close, but I've  Done it anyway. Formerip (talk) 01:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:2015 Formula One season#Once more

    Would an experienced and uninvolved administrator please close the discussion at Talk:2015 Formula One season#Once more. It never should be the discussion it has become. Thanks, Tvx1 (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

    There's like three simultaneous issues, aren't there? First the issue of the source, which seems resolved. Then the issue of the alignment and now it looks like an issue with the alignment with the flag. How would it be closed? How about someone create an actual RFC format and let people comment their views in separate subheadings? And this may sound ridiculous but I say someone should actually elevate this to Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Tables#Multi-column_sortable_standard or bring it to a WP:Sports-level discussion. We may as well have an actual agreed-upon formatting fight done in one place and end these bits and pieces. I still can't figure out why it's only the current season that has squabbling. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

    Large backlog at RfD

    WP:RFD has a large backlog, and any admin or qualified non-admin assistance in closing there would be appreciated. Please take a look at any eligible discussions; the ones I'm listing here are ones where I think consensus is clear but won't close myself because I've participated in them. Feel free to strike through or add a check mark next to each as they're done. --BDD (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

    Sorry I hadn't actually answered your question here. I don't quite feel comfortable being the one to carry out the actual deletion. Sometimes with a backlog, I'll close really obvious delete results when I'm a participant, but otherwise, I'd rather leave it to someone else once I've chimed in. I could go on at length about involved closes, but let's save that for another time. --BDD (talk) 14:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

    NAC Deletes

    Moved to Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators& § 39; noticeboard/Requests for closure#NAC Deletes

    Classical Music Guideline - Popular Culture Sections (RfC)

    Please could an uninvolved admin please review this RfC (including the discussion on the project's page), decide if consensus has been reached and help close this discussion. Thanks  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 11:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 1#Hudson Street Hooligans

    Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 1#Hudson Street Hooligans? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 6#Moxie Raia

    Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 6#Moxie Raia? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 7#Involuntary celibacy

    Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 7#Involuntary celibacy? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 26#Teen films

    This discussion started almost 2 months ago. Three editors besides the original nominator (me) agreed to merge/delete per the nom, while one editor opposed everything and another editor opposed some of what was nominated. Nobody has contributed to the discussion in over 10 days, so with 4 out of 6 editors agreeing to merge/delete per the nom, I think that is safe to say that consensus has been establish. JDDJS (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

    Category: