Misplaced Pages

:Closure requests - 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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Obiwankenobi (talk | contribs) at 15:46, 27 August 2013 (→Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic Ban for Baseball Bugs? and Day of personal attacks by Josh Gorand: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:46, 27 August 2013 by Obiwankenobi (talk | contribs) (→Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic Ban for Baseball Bugs? and Day of personal attacks by Josh Gorand: r)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Archiving icon
    Archives
    Index
    Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
    Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
    Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
    Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
    Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
    Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18
    Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21
    Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24
    Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27
    Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30
    Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33
    Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36
    Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39

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

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

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

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

    Notes about closing

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

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

    Requests for closure

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


    NFCR discussion

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

    Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#WP:PDAB

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

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

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

    Two connected ones at Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates

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

    Misplaced Pages:Files_for_deletion/2013_July_25

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

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

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

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

    I did one, but I have no patience for arguments about the relative notability of sporting events so the other one is still open. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

     Done Beeblebrox (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:Chelsea Manning#Requested move

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

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

    Kudos to SlimVirgin on this posting. This subject needs rapid attention. I sorta wish you hadn't had previous involvement with this page Slim. You'd be in a better position to intervene. Frankly I think this is ridiculous. NickCT (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
    I'll take care of it. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks BD, that's much appreciated. If you would be willing to help keep an eye on the article too, that would be great, although if you'd prefer not to mix roles, that's understandable. The problem is that several admins have been editing through protection; not major edits but it's still unfair to non-admins. (I'm not counting Mark Arsten in this, by the way, who's responding to edit requests.) I've left a note on the talk page, but it's not clear anyone's listening. SlimVirgin 21:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

    I think this close is going to need multiple admins. The move has already attracted attention in the wider media and the talkpage is being noticed on Twitter. Quite a number of arguments on the page are getting into the general issue of who gets to decide a person's gender and the whole thing is getting politicised and in some places nasty. Any decision made is going to get challenged by the losing side and almost certainly attract more media attention. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

    I am absolutely not opposed to a closure by committee. I agree with the underlying sentiment that the close is going to have to be rock solid. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    I'd say a group of 3 would be wise. Hobit (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    If there's to be a group, perhaps BD could take the lead and look for a couple of people he knows are uninvolved. SlimVirgin 00:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    I like the sound of this, and I think people here are being very sensible. Just a question though - what would happen if the result is (eek!) No Consensus? StAnselm (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    I think that's a good idea. I'll throw out names of some admins I think have a solid reputation for being fair and reasonable and that I've not seen in related areas. BOZ, Kww, Spartaz, Black Kite, and Timotheus Canens all come to mind. I'm sure others can suggest some names too... Hobit (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    I count at least four pages where this article is being discussed. I think anyone taking action should be aware of conversations on AN/I, the Manning Talk Page, RMs, etc. Liz 01:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    First, if there is no consensus, then we do have something of a problem because the page was moved in the first place without a proper discussion. However, the discussion is basically a referendum on the question of which title the page should have. I interpret WP:BRD as requiring a consensus in favor of a title different than the one that existed yesterday, in order for such a change to be effected. Secondly, there is one WP:RM discussion, and anyone who is commenting anywhere else can comment there as well. Wherever else the topic is being discussed is therefore irrelevant to the outcome of the RM. bd2412 T 02:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    I'd be available for taking part in the closing, if a group is wanted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    FPaS: I'd characterize you as having a fairly strong POV when it comes to at least one other sex related area--pornography. Do you lack a strong POV on transgenderism ? Hobit (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    What on earth does pornography have to do with transgenderism? (I'd also challenge you to find any hints on Misplaced Pages about whatever views I might have about pornography. I have never expressed any. I have expressed views about Misplaced Pages's coverage of porn actors, which is a different thing. Likewise, my views about Misplaced Pages's treatment of transgender naming issues might have little or nothing to do with my views about transgenderism proper. Duh.) But this is moot now; if the other three have agreed to do the closure, that's fine with me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    Yeah, it was probably irrelevant. Hobit (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    I'm also willing to help close this when it comes to it. ItsZippy 11:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    Per Hobit's suggestion, I asked User:BOZ and User:Kww yesterday, and they have agreed to participate in a closing committee for this discussion. bd2412 T 14:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User names

    I've just got done clearing out all the old business there, except for two cases where I had expressed an opinion. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:Tammy Duckworth#RfC on providing full date of birth

    This discussion has been open for roughly 30 days. Edge3 (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:Chelsea Manning

    Can someone here close some sections not related to rename request? The drama is going spiral right now. And there are accusations, which is against assumptions of good faith. --George Ho (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

    This is probably overdue. There is a productive conversation going on on this topic at WP:Article Titles. Liz 00:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    Speaking solely for myself: no thanks. I wouldn't touch that hornet's nest. I am inclined to think the whole situation is avidly headed for WP:RFAR and frankly the sooner it does the better. This is no longer a simple content dispute, it's a full on forest fire. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
    Over 240 editors have !voted in the move request discussion (over 250 counting IPs), although the pace is beginning to slow. A great many participants on both sides are both outraged and certain that the result will be exactly what they desire. No matter how this goes, there will be further outrage, and appeals to other forums, so the best course of action is to make sure that everything is done to the letter of the law and with the most effective explanation possible. bd2412 T 02:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
    I believe this particular edit request was around closing certain sections, not the RM (which BD2412 will handle). I've closed several, but new ones keep cropping up (discussing the name change, again, in a new section, or sections which descend into name calling)...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
    Yes, there're a few requested edits for example. I've been handling some on the talk page but I'm not inclined to make any edits to the article. I'm involved in the RM discussion and so tainted against making changes of any sort to the article right now.
    I'd feel confident someone else could deal with them though. --RA (✍) 23:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic Ban for Baseball Bugs? and Day of personal attacks by Josh Gorand

    I don't think it's fair for these two users, or anyone else, to keep the discussions open and let the thing drag on. Josh Gorand continues to edit freely on the talk page in question, although Baseball Bugs does not seem to be. StAnselm (talk) 01:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

    The first was  Closed by Ymblanter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). The second is still open. Armbrust 00:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
    Ping/bump/whatever. Stands at around 27-13 in favor of a topic ban at the moment, going on 3 days now. Tarc (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
    The proposed topic ban would last through Thursday (when the move request is planned to be closed). If this doesn't close sometime soon, a topic ban will be relatively pointless.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways)#Common name/Numbered name (Miami Problem) RfC

    I would like an uninvolved admin to please make a closure to this discussion on a guideline I suggested as the RfC period has expired. -DyluckTRocket (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

    Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Vietnamese)#RfC

    This has been open since 05 July, requesting close please. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Advice_Please

    Request for closure: I think an AN/I was premature and directed the individuals who disagree to return to the article Talk Page, RSN or DRN as this is a dispute over content and sources, not editor conduct. Liz 18:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

     Closed by BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust 14:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:VisualEditor/Default State RFC

    Request for closure: This RFC was started on July 31 and it is now August 27th. It also appears a clear consensus has been determined in this RFC and the comments and discussions have slowed to a point where it appears those who wanted to make a comment have. Also, per the talk page, there seems to be some agreement that the RFC has run its course and can be closed now. Kumioko (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)