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 01:59, 21 January 2015 editBeeblebrox (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators113,517 edits →Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Editor deliberately adding BLP violation (and unsourced claims) back to article: done← Previous edit Revision as of 02:25, 21 January 2015 edit undoClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,379,845 editsm Archiving 4 discussions to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 16. (BOT)Next edit →
Line 102: Line 102:
=== NAC Deletes === === NAC Deletes ===
{{Moved|Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#NAC_Deletes}} {{Moved|Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#NAC_Deletes}}

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|26 November 2014|done=yes}}? The opening poster wrote: <blockquote>Parallel to ''Template:Infobox Officeholder'' should this be added "''but where the area is so altered as to make such a "predecessor" or "successor" of little or no biographical value, the word "redistricted" should be used rather than using names of officeholders whose connection is accidental by virtue of district number, but unrelated to any election contests between officeholders.''" See also an earlier RfC ]</blockquote> Please consider ] in your close.Thanks, ] (]) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
:{{done}}. ] (]) 21:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


===]=== ===]===
Line 133: Line 129:
===]=== ===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|11 December 2014}}? Thanks, ] (]) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|11 December 2014}}? Thanks, ] (]) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|19 November 2014|done=yes}}? Thanks, ] (]) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
:{{done}} ] (]) 16:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


===]=== ===]===
Line 243: Line 235:
Consensus must have reached. --] (]) 03:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Consensus must have reached. --] (]) 03:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
* {{Initiated|25 December 2014}} — <span class="nowrap">&#123;&#123;U&#124;]&#125;&#125; <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span> 04:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC) * {{Initiated|25 December 2014}} — <span class="nowrap">&#123;&#123;U&#124;]&#125;&#125; <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span> 04:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
===]===
The consensus must have reached. --] (]) 23:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
* {{Initiated|19 December 2014}} — <span class="nowrap">&#123;&#123;U&#124;]&#125;&#125; <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span> 00:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
* {{Done}} ] (]) 07:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

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


Line 274: Line 261:
===]=== ===]===
Relist has gone over 7 days. ] (]) 06:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Relist has gone over 7 days. ] (]) 06:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

===]===
*Would an uninvolved editor consider closing this, please? The reason the thread was started at all was for an issue not severe enough for admin assistance (IMO), but at any rate, the issue was clearly resolved but now the two "main" editors are sort of arguing with each other off-topic. I'd close it myself but I have had dealings with the OP in the past. '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 07:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
:{{done}}. ] (]) 01:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


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

Revision as of 02:25, 21 January 2015

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 11 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

    Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/BASC reform 2014

    Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/BASC reform 2014 (Initiated 3740 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)

    You guys can go ahead with this if you think it really needs it, but my feeling on it (as noted on the talk page was that we had arrived at a consensus to change BASC, but not on exactly what those changes would be. I had planned to revisit this and do a second phase after I'm done with the GamerGate arbitration case. I would personally be more interested in recruiting a team to help manage and close that process.

    While I haven't even drafted anything yet, I am thinking it will probably be the sort of RFC where there are several different new structures proposed and we try to work out which one the community is most comfortable with. The usual problem with those types of RFCs is that instead of trying to fine-tune existing proposals, new participants just keep adding more and more proposals until it becomes impossible to come to a consensus. This is what happened in the 2011 attempt to come up with a community based desysopping procedure. We wound up with 17 proposals and nothing came of it. During the 2012 pending changes RFC I used a more restrictive format where three mutually exclusive options were presented and users had to pick one of them. That produced a usable result, but I'm not certain it is the right approach here.

    Of course anyone else is more than welcome to move this forward themselves if they don't want to wait for me to get around to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

    FWIW, I agree with this assessment of the consensus and I think a formal close probably isn't necessary. Sunrise (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive266#iBan suggested

    Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive266#iBan suggested (Initiated 3706 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)

    RTG ceased editing on 19 November 2014 so this is somewhat moot, but I doubt there is any dispute over the consensus. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2015 (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: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)

    NAC Deletes

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

    Talk:Aspromonte goat#Sources

    Would an experienced editor the consensus at Talk:Aspromonte goat#Sources (Initiated 3679 days ago on 15 December 2014)? See the subsection Talk:Aspromonte goat#RFC on Italian dairy & farming industry sources (Initiated 3703 days ago on 21 November 2014). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Aspromonte goat#RFC on citation formatting

    Would an experienced editor the consensus at Talk:Aspromonte goat#RFC on citation formatting (Initiated 3703 days ago on 21 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Evacuation of East Prussia#RfC: Beevor cited forced to reverse himself

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Evacuation of East Prussia#RfC: Beevor cited forced to reverse himself (Initiated 3711 days ago on 13 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

    File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg#RfC: How should we color Kansas?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg#RfC: How should we color Kansas? (Initiated 3703 days ago on 21 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa#ref: Remove erroneous birth name "Michael Joseph Hall" from article

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa#ref: Remove erroneous birth name "Michael Joseph Hall" from article (Initiated 3701 days ago on 23 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Tibetan Buddhism#RfC: Is the section on Bon sufficient?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tibetan Buddhism#RfC: Is the section on Bon sufficient? (Initiated 3714 days ago on 10 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:God the Son#RfC: Statements regarding term "God the Son" not existing in the Bible

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:God the Son#RfC: Statements regarding term "God the Son" not existing in the Bible (Initiated 3699 days ago on 25 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#RfC (nationality)

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#RfC (nationality) (Initiated 3686 days ago on 8 December 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 116#Close down Persistent Proposals

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 116#Close down Persistent Proposals (Initiated 3683 days ago on 11 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

    Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what? (Initiated 3696 days ago on 28 November 2014)? See the subsection Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive268#Close Review Request after overturn and reclose

    Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive268#Close Review Request after overturn and reclose (Initiated 3677 days ago on 17 December 2014) after there has been sufficient discussion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

    I am pretty sure that discussion has been sufficient already... Looks like it had to be dearchived twice... Closing it would probably be a good idea now... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#E-cig editors

    Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#E-cig editors (Initiated 3672 days ago on 22 December 2014)? See the subsection Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed topic ban for TheNorlo (Initiated 3671 days ago on 23 December 2014). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

    WP:RM backlog

    There are still 12 unclosed RM discussions from 6–10 December, 4 weeks ago; and one from November. Some of the regular closers seem to have gone on holiday. Help would be appreciated. Dicklyon (talk) 06:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

    Just noting that the backlog here is still really long - there are over 100 unclosed discussions from December. Sunrise (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Names of people for Hong Kong

    This should be closed. --George Ho (talk) 10:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 15#Welfare check

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 15#Welfare check (Initiated 3717 days ago on 7 November 2014)? Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 16#Lightning in a tropical cyclone

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 16#Lightning in a tropical cyclone (Initiated 3705 days ago on 19 November 2014)? Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 17#National Anthem Act

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 17#National Anthem Act (Initiated 3699 days ago on 25 November 2014)? Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 21#!vote

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 21#!vote (Initiated 3745 days ago on 10 October 2014)? Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

    Relisted to Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 5#!vote. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 21#9-24

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 21#9-24 (Initiated 3733 days ago on 22 October 2014)? Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

    Relisted to Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 5#9-24. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 22#List of ...for Dummies books

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 22#List of ...for Dummies books (Initiated 3694 days ago on 30 November 2014)? Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 22#Kirchner un speech

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 22#Kirchner un speech (Initiated 3724 days ago on 31 October 2014)? Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 24#August 9 1974

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 24#August 9 1974 (Initiated 3695 days ago on 29 November 2014)? Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 17#Several redirects to Pearlasia Gamboa

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 17#Several redirects to Pearlasia Gamboa (Initiated 3677 days ago on 17 December 2014)? (Consensus seems clear, but I cannot close it since I am involved and since I am a non-administrator; closing this will help clear the backlog at RFD.) Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Ordering_of_sections_2

    Previous RfC was closed as "no consensus". Change was made anyway. A further RfC was started to try to get a better consensus. It has been open for a more than 2 weeks. Wondering if someone could close it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

    That is inaccurate, The previous RFC was closed no consensus for a medical order. Afterwards the article was changed to a non medical order by an admin after a discussion with consensus from the editors on hand. AlbinoFerret 14:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    What AlbinoFerret wrote is false. The previous RfC was closed as no consensus to change the order. The change to the order was made when an editor made an edit protected request while ignoring the previous RfC. QuackGuru (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    What you are saying is false. Per the previous closing "Result: No consensus as to whether the article is primarily medical." in attempting to make it a medical order. The previous closing also stated "IMO, the way the body of the article launches straight into a discussion of the health effects related the article subject before providing the basic information about what the subject is doesn't look obviously neutral or natural." thats why it was changed. There is a section calling for the stoping of the RFC, that was hidden (collapsed), the closer should read it to fully understand whats going on. AlbinoFerret 23:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 November 12#Male murderers

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 November 12#Male murderers (Initiated 3712 days ago on 12 November 2014)? Thanks, --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive267#Closure Review Request on Climate Engineering

    Would an administrator assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive267#Closure Review Request on Climate Engineering (Initiated 3665 days ago on 29 December 2014) Thanks, Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles#Stylization of the "common name"

    Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion backlog

    Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at the following template discussions:

    Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 08:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

    Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items#The_Boat_Race

    This discussion has devolved into personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. The requestor has withdrawn the proposal, however multiple editors would like it to continue. I would like an neutral administrator to at least go through the discussion and address/hide content that could be considered personal attacks. Mamyles (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Cairns child killings#Poll on disputed BLP items

    Consensus must have reached. --George Ho (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

    Misplaced Pages:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 15#New "vandal stopper" user group

    Apparently, New "vandal stopper" user group (Initiated 3710 days ago on 14 November 2014) needs a formal close to see whether or not there was consensus in the discussion to put together a proposal to present to the community. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} 23:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

    Umm, no. It was posted at the idea lab, which means it wasn't there for support and oppose votes, but to come up with a concrete proposal to take to the community. I suggesting opening it at Village Pump Proposals with a specific proposal that can either be yessed or noed. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Elon_Musk#Proposal_1:_on_Musk_and_PayPal

    Would an uninvolved administrator please drop by to close a discussion at Talk:Elon_Musk#Proposal_1:_on_Musk_and_PayPal? The discussion has been open for almost thirty days with no recent action in a couple of weeks. Thanks. N2e (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3676 days ago on 18 December 2014)

    Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Football

    Request close of section Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Football#Determination of what country an article relates to, and MOSNUM consequences. Little discussion for a couple of weeks. Related to general sanctions at WP:GS/UKU. Kahastok talk 10:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3663 days ago on 31 December 2014)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed_Topic_Bans_-_User:Раціональне анархіст

    Ma Mati Manush

    Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pakistan–Uruguay relations

    Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 06:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_117#Proposed_technical_change:_show_pages_expanded_from_redirects_on_Special:NewPages_and_Special:NewPagesFeed

    Misplaced Pages:Move review#Greenbelt Station

    • Now that the original closer has returned from a 4-week absence and made his comments, no further delay is necessary. Several other open RMs hinge on the outcome. Dicklyon (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    Category: