Misplaced Pages:Closure requests: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 15:30, 25 May 2015 editSteel1943 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors197,163 edits →ANI proposal to dissolve IBAN between me and Catflap08: fix?← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 10:07, 11 January 2025 edit undoSeraphimblade (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators46,261 edits →Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC_Science-Based_Medicine: One done
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{admin backlog}}
	<!--		<!--
	-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-		-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
	New entries go down at the BOTTOM of this page and not up here.		New entries go down at the BOTTOM of this page and not up here.
	-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-		-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
			-->

			{{redirect\|WP:CR\|text=You may be looking for ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]}}
	--><noinclude>
			{{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 = 18		\|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,{{not done,{{Not 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=4		\|headerlevel=3
	\|maxarchsize=256000		\|maxarchsize=256000
	\|minkeepthreads=0		\|minkeepthreads=0
	\|numberstart=16		\|numberstart=16
	}}{{Archives\|search=yes\|bot=ClueBot III~~\|age=90~~}}		}}{{Archives\|auto=short\|search=yes\|bot=ClueBot III}}
	{{Shortcut\|WP:~~ANRFC~~\|WP:~~AN/RFC~~}}		{{Shortcut\|WP:CR\|WP:RFCL\|WP:ANRFC}}

	~~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.		<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 ]).
	]
	'''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.</noinclude>
	{{TOC limit\|4}}

			]
	== Requests for closure ==<includeonly>
			'''Any ] may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.'''
	:''These requests for closure are ] from ].''</includeonly><!--

			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.
	Please add new requests to the bottom of the page! Thanks!

			'''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.
	-->
			{{cot\|title=Technical instructions for closers}}
	{{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 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}}.
	<!--Please add new backlog requests to the appropriate section! Thanks!-->
			{{cob}}
			'''If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here'''. Instead follow advice at ].

			<section end=Instructions/>
	===XfD===
			{{TOC limit\|4}}
	====ANI proposal to dissolve IBAN between me and Catflap08====
			]
	received no opposition, was supported by one of the subjects and three other users; the other subject was neutral. But the thread got archived no result by a trigger-happy archive bot. It's not really a close request so much as a request to read the discussion and remove the ] entry accordingly. ] (<small>]]</small>) 10:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

			== Other areas tracking old discussions ==
	====]====
			* ]
	No comments for a couple of days bar my bump, consensus is pretty clear. ] ] 00:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
			* ]
	*{{Initiated\|18 May 2015\|type=\|done=}} ] (]) 22:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]

			== Administrative discussions ==
	====]====
			<!--
	There are two open discussions that were open almost a month ago, and nobody has commented on them in over 3 weeks, and to me, the conesus seems pretty clear on both of them. ] (]) 19:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
			Please place entries ordered by the date the discussion was initiated (oldest at top)
	*{{Initiated\|23 April 2015\|type=cfd\|done=}} ] (]) 22:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

			Please ensure you add the {{initiated\|date here}} template when placing a request here
	==== Messy RfDs about Ottoman princesses ====
	There are two expired RfDs on ] which seem to have arisen from a botched move / fork sequence. I'm not sure I know what the best course of action is - can we have a fresh pair of admin eyes to close this and perform the appropriate remedial actions? ]] 22:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
	*{{Initiated\|4 May 2015\|type=rfd\|done=}} ] (]) 22:36, 23 May 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. *
	====]====
			Place new administrative discussions below this line using a level 3 heading -->
	This has been open 7 days, it was opened 14 May 2015, and looks like a possible ]. Real discussion has stopped a few days ago and a few !votes have trickled in since then, but its pretty clear the direction this is heading. At this point we have those that are against the essay rehashing the same arguments. ] 14:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
	* {{Already done}} by The Herald ] 20:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

			=== ]===
	==== CfD backlog ====
			{{initiated\|17:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)}} challenge of close at AN was archived ''']''' - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	There are currently '''''many''''' open discussions, including some going all the way back to December. Please see the list at ]. - <b>]</b> 17:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
			=== ] ===
	:As of 12 May, December is done but there are three remaining from January, 9 from February and over 70 from March. – ] '''<font color="#FF0000">]</font>'''] 07:39, 12 May 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 ==
	====]====
			<!--
	There are twelve discussions of Feb 21 still open while it's nearly two months later. ] (]) 08:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
			Please place entries ordered by the date the RFC was initiated (oldest at top)
	*{{Initiated\|21 February 2015\|type=cfd\|done=}} ] (]) 22:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
	:Down to ten discussions as of now. ] (]) 09:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
	:: Don't think so, I still count 12. ] (]) 14:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
	:::OK, but it's now down to 9. ] (]) 15:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
	::::Now down to two. Some of the usual CfD closers can't close these as they have participated in the discussions. – ] '''<font color="#FF0000">]</font>'''] 16:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

			Please ensure you add the {{initiated\|date here}} template when placing a request here
	====]====
	This Incident ] was archived without being officially closed or any action taken. Could someone review it and officially close it or take appropriate action. Thank you for your time. ] (]) 20:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
	*{{Initiated\|11 May 2015}} ] (]) 22:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Note''': I have unarchived this thread. It can now be found at ]. ] (]) 22:47, 23 May 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. *
	==== ] ====
			-->
	Please disposition ], which has been open for over two weeks without relisting. --] (]) 02:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

			=== ] ===
	===Requested moves ===
			{{initiated\|22:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)}} Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. ] (]) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
	:'']''
	Anyone have a mop? Some of the discussions there are backed up all the way from early February. '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 08:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Update: situation is much improved, but there's still a six-week backlog of move requests. -- ] (]) 18:32, 24 May 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)
	] was '''''withdrawn''''' about half a month ago (on 8 May 2015), and there have been no more comments since that day. ] (]) 12:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
			:{{a note}} This is a ] and subject to ]. - ] (]) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
	*{{Initiated\|1 May 2015\|type=rm\|done=}} ] (]) 22:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
			:'''] ''''']''''' , ] ] <small>22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)</small>

			=== ] ===
	====] {{Initiated\|27 April 2015\|type=rm\|done=}}====
			{{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 discussion has been open for almost a month now. Could someone please close it already? The article is ], making ] impossible. ] (]) 06:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

			=== ] ===
	=== Requests for comment===
			{{Initiated\|16:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)}}
	<!-- Header - Hopefully Cluebot will stop archiving it. -->
			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 discussion, begun April 27, has reached a point of repeated arguments by the same few editors. It is over 26,000 words long after fewer than 10 days. If it's left without closure for much longer, it will be the size of a small novel and daunt any attempts at closing it. --] (]) 00:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
	*{{Initiated\|27 April 2015\|type=\|done=}} ] (]) 22:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
	*It's two weeks since the initial request, and the time-consuming morass is worse than ever. Respectfully requesting closure, with the acknowledgment that it might be a challenging task. --] (]) 16:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

			=== ] ===
	*I'm the originator of the RfC. I agree, and came here to request formal closure by an uninvolved admin. The issue is contentious and consensus remains unclear; It may also have wiki-wide implications. The RfC discussion is quite lengthy, so a summary of the RfC (i.e. a concise outline of the main points presented by both sides of the issue) ]. ] (]) 02:05, 22 May 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)

			=== ] ===
	:::This RfC's introduction is essentially flawed: It does not propose two (or more) options to choose from, neither does it make a proposal which may me supported or opposed. This led some !voters to support or oppose a large variety of things without being clear how these thing stand in connection with what other !voters support or oppose. Other !voters said yes or no, while the introduction actually presents different positions (for or against) concerning the inclusion of different things, to wit: non-notable, non-sourceable, and/or no-wiki-article-having awards. That makes it even more difficult to know what these !voters actually said yes or no to. For that reason, the usual closers active in this area have so far refrained from tackling this thread. ] (]) 21:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
			{{Initiated\|20:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)\|done=y}} slowed for a while ] (]) 06:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{done}} ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 10:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

	====]====		=== ] ===
			{{Initiated\| 08:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)}} Participation mostly slowed, should have an independent close. ] (]) 10:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	An RfC and a survey was opened following inconsistency and edit-war for place in the collage at infobox top. After long discussion a list of 30 people and a resulting collage image was made. This process started on March 31. A total of 122 nominations were made, 29 editors voted, 14 editors discussed, 2 filter systems were discussed and merged, 11 editors have agreed to ratify it, 3 editors complained, 1 editor remained apprehensive. This is time for closing this long discussion. An non-involved admin would be the right person to do it. –''] ] ]'' 06:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
	*{{Initiated\|31 March 2015\|type=\|done=}} ] (]) 22:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

			=== Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading ===
	==== ] ====
			{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|2147483647}}
	Would an uninvolved editor please close this merge request? ] (]) 20:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
			<!-- Place this line below the heading:
	*{{Initiated\|20 March 2015\|type=\|done=}} <small>(This was when the section was created, but it has since been renamed.)</small> ] (]) 22:36, 23 May 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 ==
	==== ] ====
			{{XFD backlog\|right}}
	RfC has run for 30 days. Note that there are two parts to this RfC, the disclaimer and the JavaScript. Consensus about the disclaimer seems pretty clear, but people might disagree about the clarity of the consensus related to the JavaScript. ] (]) 19:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
			=== ] ===
	*{{Initiated\|12 April 2015\|type=\|done=}} ] (]) 22:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
			{{initiated\|00:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)\|type=cfd}} <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

			=== ] ===
	==== ] ====
			{{initiated\|23:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)\|type=cfd}} <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 20:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	Can an experienced editor summarize the consensus at the above link? A simple count does not yield a clear result. Thanks! ] (]) 01:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
	: {{Done}}. --] (]) 14:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

			=== ] ===
	==== ] & ] ====
			{{initiated\|02:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)\|type=cfd}} <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	Both discussions were started over a month ago. I'd like to get an uninvolved closer. Note: both discussions were continued over at ], but discussion there has been inactive for over 10 days. ] (]) 16:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
	: {{Done}}. --] (]) 15:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

			=== Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading ===
	====]====
			{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|2147483647}}
	I would like to have an experienced admin close the RfC at ]. The consensus for BLPs is pretty clear, but additional guidance on whether I need to post another RfC for fictional characters, dead people, schools, nations, etc., that contain "religion = None" in the infoboxes would be helpful. --] (]) 05:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
	*{{Initiated\|21 April 2015\|type=\|done=}} ] (]) 22:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

			== Other types of closing requests ==
	====]====
			<!--
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|16 March 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 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 admin assess the consensus at at ] {{Initiated\|18 March 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 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 admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|18 March 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at at ] {{Initiated\|19 March 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at at ] {{Initiated\|20 March 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at at ] {{Initiated\|20 March 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|21 April 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|20 April 2015}}? Please consider ] in your close. Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|24 April 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|3 April 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|9 April 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|9 April 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|13 March 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|15 April 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at at ] {{Initiated\|23 March 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at at ] {{Initiated\|24 March 2015}}? The opening poster wrote: "Should be article be redirected, or kept and improved?" Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|24 March 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|17 April 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|17 April 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|16 March 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|14 March 2015}}? See the subsection ]. Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|26 March 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|30 March 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|19 April 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at at ] {{Initiated\|31 March 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at at ] {{Initiated\|4 April 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|8 April 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at at ] {{Initiated\|30 April 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at at ] {{Initiated\|2 May 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|14 April 2015}}? The opening poster wrote: "Should the ] be included in the infobox as a co-belligerent of the Central Powers?" Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|17 April 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|18 April 2015}}? Please consider ] in your close. Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|30 March 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|15 April 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|15 March 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|22 March 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|24 March 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|24 March 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|2 April 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|12 April 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|10 April 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|21 March 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|22 April 2015}}? The opening poster wrote: "Is the current drummer of AC/DC Phil Rudd or Chris Slade?" Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|7 April 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|10 April 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|10 April 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|21 April 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|22 April 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|22 April 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|18 March 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|31 March 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|20 April 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|3 April 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|23 April 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|15 April 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|25 April 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|31 March 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|24 March 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|31 March 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|7 April 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|15 April 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|15 April 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|25 April 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|21 February 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|21 March 2015}}? See the subsection ] in your close. Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|3 April 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 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 admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|19 April 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 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)
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|23 March 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (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)
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|7 April 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 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)
	====]====
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|17 March 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 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\|6 April 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

			===]===
	====]====
			{{initiated\|23:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} Proposed merge discussion originally opened on 30 May 2024, closed on 27 October 2024, and reopened on 27 December 2024 following the closure being overturned at AN. ] (]/]) 00:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|23 April 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 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 admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|18 April 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 10:07, 11 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.

v t e 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	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

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

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}}`.

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 75 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)

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)

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)

Done Seraphimblade 10:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 31 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	Dec	Jan	Total
CfD	3	2	5
TfD	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	0
FfD	7	7	14
RfD	31	15	46
AfD	0	0	0

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

(Initiated 22 days ago on 20 December 2024) House Blaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

(Initiated 10 days ago on 1 January 2025) House Blaster (talk • he/they) 20:50, 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 108 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 74 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 65 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)

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 45 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)

Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 14 days ago on 27 December 2024) Proposed merge discussion originally opened on 30 May 2024, closed on 27 October 2024, and reopened on 27 December 2024 following the closure being overturned at AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Categories: