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 editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:39, 25 February 2015 editCollect (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers47,160 edits →Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC Congressmen's tenures in infobox: cmt← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:57, 10 January 2025 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators59,084 edits →Deletion discussions: fix 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{admin backlog}}
<noinclude>
<!--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of this page and not up here.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-->
{{redirect|WP:CR|text=You may be looking for ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]}}
{{redirect|WP:ANC|text=You may be looking for ]}}
{{Noticeboard links | style = border: 2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin: 2px 0; | titlestyle = background-color: #AAD1FF; | groupstyle = background-color: #CAE1FF; }} {{Noticeboard links | style = border: 2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin: 2px 0; | titlestyle = background-color: #AAD1FF; | groupstyle = background-color: #CAE1FF; }}
] ]
{{Archive basics {{Archive basics
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 17 |counter = 37
|archiveheader = {{Aan}} |archiveheader = {{Aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 256000 |maxsize = 256000
}}
}}{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive
|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive
|format= %%i |format= %%i
|age=7200 |age=4368
|archivenow=<nowiki>{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}},{{resolved,{{Resolved,{{done,{{Done,{{already done,{{Already done,{{close,{{Close</nowiki> |archivenow=<!-- <nowiki>{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}},{{resolved,{{Resolved,{{done,{{Done,{{DONE,{{already done,{{Already done,{{not done,{{Not done,{{notdone,{{close,{{Close,{{nd,{{tick,{{xXxX</nowiki> -->
|header={{Aan}} |header={{Aan}}
|headerlevel=3 |headerlevel=3
Line 17: Line 25:
|minkeepthreads=0 |minkeepthreads=0
|numberstart=16 |numberstart=16
}}{{Archives|search=yes|bot=ClueBot III|age=300}} }}{{Archives|auto=short|search=yes|bot=ClueBot III}}
{{Shortcut|WP:CR|WP:RFCL|WP:ANRFC}}
<includeonly>{{TOC limit|3}}</includeonly>
{{Shortcut|WP:ANRFC|WP:AN/RFC}}</noinclude><includeonly><!--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of this page and not above here.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-->


<section begin=Instructions/>Use the '''closure requests noticeboard''' to ask an uninvolved editor to ]. Do so when ] appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our ]).
== Requests for closure ==
:''This section is ] from ].''</includeonly>
<noinclude>The '''Requests for closure noticeboard''' is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor ] 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.'''


] '''Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.'''
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 ] is 30 days (opened on or before '''{{#time:j F Y|-30 days}}'''); 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 ], so that there is enough time for a full discussion.


Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, ] to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.
]
'''If consensus is unclear, then post a neutral request here for assistance.'''


] '''Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.'''
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 ] at ] with a link to the discussion page and the policy-based reason you believe the closure should be overturned. See ] for previous closure reviews.


On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. '''Do not continue the discussion here'''.
]
'''Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.'''


There is no fixed length for a formal ] (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.
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.


] '''When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure'''.
A ] 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 ] and ]—see ] and ] for details.


Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{tl|Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A ] can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.
Once a discussion listed on this page has been closed, please add {{Tl|Close}} or {{Tl|Done}} and a note to the request here, after which the request will be archived.
{{TOC limit|3}}


]
== Requests for closure ==
'''Any ] may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.'''
</noinclude>
{{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|Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#Old business}}
<!--Please add new request to the bottom of the page! Thanks!-->


Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if ]. You should be familiar with all ] that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the ] page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.
===]===
* <s>]</s>
* <s>]</s>
* <s>]</s>
* ]
* <s>]</s>
* <s>]</s>
* <s>]</s>
* ]
* ]
* ]
* <s>]</s>
* <s>]</s> (closed)
* <s>]</s> (closed)
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! ] ] 22:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
* {{Initiated|29 November 2014|type=tfd}} — <span class="nowrap">&#123;&#123;U&#124;]&#125;&#125; <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span> 15:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


'''Non-admins can close ''most'' discussions'''. ] your ] just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions ], or where implementing the closure ]. ] and ] processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.
=== ] backlog ===
{{cot|title=Technical instructions for closers}}
Please append {{tlx|Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{tlx|Close}} or {{tlx|Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{tlx|Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{tlx|Not done}}. '''After addressing a request, please mark the {{tlx|Initiated}} template with {{para|done|yes}}.''' ] will ] requests marked with {{tlx|Already done}}, {{tlx|Close}}, {{tlx|Done}} {{tlx|Not done}}, and {{tlx|Resolved}}.
{{cob}}
'''If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here'''. Instead follow advice at ].


<section end=Instructions/>
Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at the following template discussions:
{{TOC limit|4}}
]


== Other areas tracking old discussions ==
*] – {{Initiated|15 October 2014|type=tfd}}
* ]
*] - {{Initiated|20 October 2014|type=tfd|done=yes}}
* ]
:*Done by ] - closed as '''redirect'''. ] (]) 07:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
*] – {{Initiated|21 October 2014|type=tfd}} * ]
*] – {{Initiated|24 October 2014|type=tfd|done=yes}} * ]
* ]
:*Done by ] - closed as '''delete'''. ] (]) 22:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
* ]
*] – {{Initiated|24 October 2014|type=tfd|done=yes}}
* ]
:*Done by ] - closed as '''no consensus'''. ] (]) 07:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
* ]
*] – {{Initiated|24 October 2014|type=tfd}}
*] – {{Initiated|29 October 2014|type=tfd|done=yes}}
:*Done by ] - closed as '''delete'''. ] (]) 07:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
*] – {{Initiated|29 October 2014|type=tfd}}
*] – {{Initiated|29 October 2014|type=tfd|done=yes}}
:*Done by ] - closed as '''subst and delete'''. ] (]) 05:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
*]– {{Initiated|1 November 2014|type=tfd|done=yes}}
:*Done by ] - closed as '''no consensus'''. ] (]) 07:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
*] – {{Initiated|15 November 2014|type=tfd|done=yes}}
:*Done by ] - closed as '''delete'''. ] (]) 07:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
*] – {{Initiated|15 November 2014|type=tfd|done=yes}}
:*Done by ] - closed as '''delete'''. ] (]) 07:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
*] - {{Initiated|29 November 2014|type=tfd|done=yes }}
:*Done by ] - closed as '''don't merge'''. ] (]) 07:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


== Administrative discussions ==
Thanks, ] (]) 08:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
<!--
Please place entries ordered by the date the discussion was initiated (oldest at top)


Please ensure you add the {{initiated|date here}} template when placing a request here
===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|21 December 2014|done=yes}}? Thanks, ] (]) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


*** PLEASE don't archive old discussions yourself! &nbsp;Let a bot do it. &nbsp;Archiving the done close requests triggers the bot to do other essential things. ***
===]===
Place new administrative discussions below this line using a level 3 heading -->
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] {{Initiated|1 December 2014}}? Thanks, ] (]) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


=== ]===
===]===
{{initiated|17:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)}} challenge of close at AN was archived ''']''' - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|15 December 2014}}? Thanks, ] (]) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
=== ] ===
{{initiated|18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)}} ] (]/]) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
===Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading===
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}


== Requests for comment ==
===]===
<!--
Seven discussions still open. '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 05:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Please place entries ordered by the date the RFC was initiated (oldest at top)
*Down to five now. --] (]) 19:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


Please ensure you add the {{initiated|*date here*}} template when placing a request here
===]===
Discussion has been ongoing for two months and it's only been getting more heated. No sign of consensus for merging in sight. {{initiated|8 December 2014|type=tfd}} ] (]) 01:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
*I second Alakzi's request above. ] (]) 01:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
*Also, for a timeline of this TfD see ]. There was a 20-day 'break period' I neglected to mention; I apologise. ] (]) 02:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


*** PLEASE don't archive old discussions yourself! Let a bot do it. Archiving the done close requests triggers the bot to do other essential things. ***
===]===
-->
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] {{Initiated|4 January 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 20:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


=== ] ===
===]===
{{initiated|22:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)}} Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. ] (]) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|26 December 2014}}? Thanks, ] (]) 20:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


===] ===
===]===
{{Initiated|11:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)}} Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - ] (]) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|4 January 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 20:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
:{{a note}} This is a ] and subject to ]. - ] (]) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''] ''''']'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)</small>


=== ] ===
===]===
{{Initiated|19:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)}} RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. ] (]) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
This is a discussion on a topic that has, in the past, proved so controversial that ] are in force. For that reason, and because of the general sanctions, it would be very useful for us to actually have an external editor judge whether consensus has been reached or not - as opposed to the discussion just being removed mysteriously from the page with no explanation given beyond an edit summary claiming that no admin is needed. The risk at present is that people might act on a consensus that they believe might exist in this discussion, only to be sanctioned under the general sanctions if admins at ] disagree. It may be that no admin is formally needed to close the discussion - any uninvolved editor can close the discussion after all - but it would be entirely false to say that a close would serve no purpose or is not needed. It really is.


=== ] ===
So would an uninvolved editor please close the discussion. If you feel the point is obvious, then great! In that case, please close it with a statement of the obvious. But it does need to be closed. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 23:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
{{Initiated|16:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)}}
:As the initiator of the discussion in question, I concur with the need for an uninvolved editor or admin to review the discussion and determine whether a consensus has indeed been reached. The whole purpose of this discussion, as {{u|Kahastok}} touched upon, was to determine a consensus for the use of metric vs. imperial units in the infobox of various personnel in association football. Without getting into too much detail here, the desire is to have a WikiProject-wide guideline for the use of height and weight units and how they would be inserted without the need for a discussion on every article which ''might'' be UK related as presently required by ]. The need for an uninvolved editor or admin is to avoid any appearance of the process being railroaded by a few editors. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup><small>]</small><sub>]</sub> 00:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Clear consensus that the proposed edit (and its amended version) violate ]. However, the owning editor is engaging in ] behavior, repeatedly arguing against the consensus and dismissing others' rationale as not fitting his personal definition of synthesis; and is persistently assuming bad-faith, including . When finally challenged to give a direct quote from the source that supports the proposed edit, it was dismissed with "" and then The discussion is being driven into a ground by an editor who does not (nor wish to) understand consensus and can't be ] with any opposing argument supported by Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines. --] (]) 22:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


=== ] ===
This has now been archived ], but a close remains relevant. Would somebody please close it? '']'' <small>'']''</small> 09:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
{{initiated|22:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)}} Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. '']''<sup>]</sup> 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{a note}} Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. ] (]) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


===]=== === ] ===
{{Initiated|20:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)}} slowed for a while ] (]) 06:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
This RfC has only been going on for three weeks, but the discussion has well and truly ended, with no contribution for more than a week. (Also, it's a continuation of a previous discussion, and so the issue has been dragging on a long time.) I thought the consensus was clear to exclude the text under discussion, but I checked with the lone "include" !voter and he or she didn't think so. ]] (]) 19:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


=== ] ===
===]===
{{Initiated| 08:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)}} Participation mostly slowed, should have an independent close. ] (]) 10:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
states : ''This RfC will run for 30 days or until a clear consensus emerges. It is recommended that this RfC be closed by an Admin - one who has no previous involvement in the AfC process.'' This RfC for an emergency measure has run for 11 days and participation has tailed off; a consensus appears to have been reached so would an uninvolved '''admin''' please consider closing it. --] (]) 05:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


=== Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading ===
From at WP:AN: {{quotation|1=Would an admin assess the consensus the consensus at ] (initiated 5 February 2015)? According to at ], this is an "RfC for an emergency measure". Thank you, ] (]) 00:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}
:You mean to assess if there is a clear consensus? Despite this being an emergency measure, the RfC itself says "this RfC will run for 30 days or until a clear consensus emerges" so it should probably be allowed to continue to run the 30 days if there is no clear consensus. BTW, I'm seeing !votes on 1st February so I think the 5 February date must be wrong. ] (]) 14:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
<!-- Place this line below the heading:
::Yes, thank you for reviewing the discussion and correcting the start day. ] (]) 08:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)}} ] (]) 08:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
{{Initiated|<date and time when RfC was opened, in the format as would be produced by ~~~~~>}}
If the discussion is not an RfC (which is the default), add a |type=xxx code for the discussion type, e.g. |type=drv for deletion review; see Template:Initiated/doc for a list of codes.
-->


== Deletion discussions ==
:::I see that an ''involved party'' (namely, the user making the original proposal) has ''taken it upon himself'' to close the RfC even though he is *not* ], the RfC has only run for 15 of the normal 30 days and the proposal is controversial. I believe this should be reverted at once, but would prefer not to become involved in an edit war by reverting it myself. Comments? ] (]) 06:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
{{XFD backlog|right}}
=== ] ===
{{initiated|00:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)|type=cfd}} <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


=== ] ===
===]===
{{initiated|1 January 2025|type=cfd}} <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I started this discussion, and I was expecting an automatic closure because I didn't know how the system worked. It was automatically archived. Is it too late? ] (]) 06:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


=== ] ===
===]===
{{initiated|31 December 2024|type=cfd}} <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 20:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|24 January 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 00:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


=== Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading ===
===]===
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}
Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|8 February 2015}}? A discussion participant wrote: "Since there appears to be no agreement between myself and involved admins, I would like to request closure by an uninvolved admin." Thanks, ] (]) 00:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


== Other types of closing requests ==
===]===
<!--
RFC finished a while back and nobody's commented for around a week. Can an admin please assess consensus and close? ] (]) 22:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Please place entries ordered by the date the discussion was initiated (oldest at top).


Please ensure you add the {{initiated|*date here*}} template when placing a request here.
===]===
Would an an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at ] ''after February 16 at 00:16 UTC''. {{Initiated|15 February 2015}} Note that the discussion is over 40,000 words. Thank you. <span style="background-color:#B7D9F9;padding:0px 3px;border-radius:3px">]&nbsp;<span style="border-left:1px solid #0E5CA4;padding-left:3px">]</span></span> 02:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


*** PLEASE don't archive old discussions yourself! Let a bot do it. Archiving the done close requests triggers the bot to do other essential things. ***
===]===
-->
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|9 January 2015}}? Please consider the closed RfCs ] (Initiated 6 May 2014) and ] (Initiated 26 November 2014) in your close. Thanks, ] (]) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
:Note: This is covered in Kraxler's request below where the argument that a close where the closer finds strong arguments against a proposal is not valid, although the policies and guidelines specify that a closer may due so. The Successionbox close is not at issue as the infobox != successionbox. Cheers. ] (]) 14:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|11 January 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|11 January 2015}}? The opening poster wrote: "Which version of the income equality section more accurately reflects the findings of the peer reviewed literature reviews, or ?" Thanks, ] (]) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] {{Initiated|10 January 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] {{Initiated|20 January 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|8 January 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|16 January 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] {{Initiated|19 January 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] {{Initiated|22 December 2014}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|10 January 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|10 January 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
*{{notdone}} It looks like editors have already resolved this on their own. ''''']''''' ''<font size="1.8">(])</font>'' 02:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|4 January 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


===]===
:The consensus seems clear, but from the page history it seems that this was never advertised as an RfC. As such, I'm not sure if a close would be helpful here, since it could be challenged on the grounds of needing input from a wider section of the community before a site-wide change. Any thoughts on closing with this rationale, and/or reopening the discussion with the RfC template attached? ''''']''''' ''<font size="1.8">(])</font>'' 05:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
{{initiated|25 September 2024}} Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


===]=== ===]===
Would an uninvolved administrator please assess consensus and close this discussion? Much obliged. ] — ] 05:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC) {{initiated|29 October 2024}} There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. ]] 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


===]===
===]===
{{initiated|7 November 2024}} Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. ] (]) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
This thread, which eilicited substantial discussion and polling, has been auto-archived without closure. In fairness to all and to avoid repeating discussion of these issues in the future, an Admin is needed to undo the archiving and evaluate consensus in order to resolve this matter. Thanks. ]] 14:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


* {{a note}} I'm happy to perform the merge if required, as have summarised other sections of this article already with consensus. I realise it's usually expected to perform splits or merges when closing discussions, but in this case it wouldn't be needed. ] (]) 20:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
===]===
—] (]) 18:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


===]===
===]===
{{initiated|11:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)}} Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. ] (] • ]) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|26 December 2014}} Thanks, <code><span style="font-family: consolas;font-weight: bold">]]]</span></code> 21:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
===]===
Would an admin look at these three DRV discussions, close them and eventually re-close (or relist wit an appropriate rationale) the three relevant AfDs? The situation requires an immediate action, as the AfD closes were vacated and the three AfDs are "virtually" reopened, and, citing one editor, "AfD and DRV running on the same article at the same time is just crazy". ] 07:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


=== Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading ===
===]===
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}
Would an uninvolved administrator please assess consensus and close this discussion? Thank you. ] (]) 16:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
:The RfC was closed with a faulty rationale by ]. Could someby have another look at it. I added a comment there to make clear what I find fault with. ] (]) 13:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' as the closure was fine except the proposer thinks "arguments against are rather strong" is an invalid close. The proposer now thinks he can unilaterally void the prior RfC by ''I hereby give notice that the previous "consensus" is no further recognized as such. You can't eat your cake and have it too.'' I suggest we abide by ] and recognize that a closer may note '' the arguments against are rather strong'' without facing this sort of request (noting the closer {{U|JzG}} was not notified of this action) ] (]) 14:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:57, 10 January 2025

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.
"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Cleanup resources, Misplaced Pages:Categorizing redirects, Misplaced Pages:Copyrights, Misplaced Pages:Competence is required, Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, Misplaced Pages:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction. "WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Assume no clue.
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 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
    11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
    21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
    31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39


    This page has archives. Sections older than 182 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.
    Shortcuts

    Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Misplaced Pages discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

    Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

    Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

    Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

    On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

    There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

    When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

    Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

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

    Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

    Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

    Technical instructions for closers

    Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

    If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.


    Other areas tracking old discussions

    Administrative discussions

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus

    (Initiated 28 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

    (Initiated 26 days ago on 15 December 2024) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

    Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

    Requests for comment

    Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

    (Initiated 95 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 459#RFC_Jerusalem_Post

    (Initiated 74 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

    information Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

    Talk:Genocide#RfC: History section, adding native American and Australian genocides as examples

    (Initiated 65 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Talk:Team Seas#Re: the ocean pollution additions

    (Initiated 56 days ago on 15 November 2024) Clear consensus that the proposed edit (and its amended version) violate WP:SYNTH. However, the owning editor is engaging in sealioning behavior, repeatedly arguing against the consensus and dismissing others' rationale as not fitting his personal definition of synthesis; and is persistently assuming bad-faith, including opening an ANI accusing another editor of WP:STONEWALLING. When finally challenged to give a direct quote from the source that supports the proposed edit, it was dismissed with "I provided the source, read it yourself" and then further accused that editor with bad-faith. The discussion is being driven into a ground by an editor who does not (nor wish to) understand consensus and can't be satisfied with any opposing argument supported by Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    Talk:Israel#RfC

    (Initiated 49 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    information Note: Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. Bogazicili (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC_Science-Based_Medicine

    (Initiated 34 days ago on 7 December 2024) slowed for a while Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Talk:Wicked (2024 film)#RfC on whether credited name or common name should be used

    (Initiated 30 days ago on 11 December 2024) Participation mostly slowed, should have an independent close. Happily888 (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

    Deletion discussions

    XFD backlog
    V Oct Nov Dec Jan Total
    CfD 0 0 17 9 26
    TfD 0 0 0 1 1
    MfD 0 0 0 0 0
    FfD 0 0 7 6 13
    RfD 0 0 34 15 49
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0

    Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 20#Category:Belarusian saints

    (Initiated 21 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 1#Category:Category-Class 20th Century Studios pages of NA-importance

    (Initiated 9 days ago on 1 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 31#Category:Disambig-Class Star Trek pages

    (Initiated 10 days ago on 31 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

    Other types of closing requests

    Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

    (Initiated 107 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

    (Initiated 73 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

    Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Survey

    (Initiated 64 days ago on 7 November 2024) Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. CNC (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    • information Note: I'm happy to perform the merge if required, as have summarised other sections of this article already with consensus. I realise it's usually expected to perform splits or merges when closing discussions, but in this case it wouldn't be needed. CNC (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

    (Initiated 44 days ago on 27 November 2024) Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

    Categories: