Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:58, 10 October 2012

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:ANRFC
• WP:AN/RFC

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

The Requests for closure noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Misplaced Pages. Most discussions do not need to follow a formal process for closing and summarizing the result.

Requests for closure

Article namespace

Talk:List of castles in Belgium#RfC: What word should we use for châteaus/manor houses/kasteel? Does using the word 'castle' for these even make sense?

Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:List of castles in Belgium#RfC: What word should we use for châteaus/manor houses/kasteel? Does using the word 'castle' for these even make sense? (initiated 3 August 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Isle of Wight Academy#RFC regarding mention of segregation academy in lead paragraph, parallel version of history

Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Isle of Wight Academy#RFC regarding mention of segregation academy in lead paragraph, parallel version of history (initiated 8 August 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

 Non-admin closure. Churn and change (talk) 04:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Reincarnation research#Merge proposal

RfC has ended. Needs admin closure. (note canvassing issues etc) IRWolfie- (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad Iqbal#Poet of the East

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Muhammad Iqbal#Poet of the East and Talk:Muhammad Iqbal#Poet of the East 2? Please consider making the second section a subsection of the first since the two sections are related and then hatting both sections when making a close. The discussion was initiated on 13 August 2012 to determine whether to call Iqbal "The poet of the East". The discussion has run its course, and I would like an uninvolved editor to assess the consensus in the discussion which "adds a degree of finality to it". Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

•  Done and hatted as suggested. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 05:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Occupation_and_illegal_annexation_of_the_Baltic_states_by_the_Soviet_Union_(1940)#Requested_move

I think there is a consensus to move. There is some discussion, but it leads to nowhere. My very best wishes (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

This is an extremely contentious request for numerous reasons, and care should be taken to at least skim through the walls of text generated there. Recommend admin or crat closure only. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this must be a closure by uninivoved admin. I think there was a clear consensus to rename to Soviet occupation of the Baltic states (1940). ("1940" is important since there were other occupations of Baltic states). Later, one of users started an contentious discussion that became unproductive and personal. The request to rename was standing long enough for everyone to discuss and tell his opinion. If there is no consensus out there, it should be closed as "no consensus", meaning that old title remains and all participants should do something more productive. My very best wishes (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I know I have completely ignored you advice here, but what difficult discussions need is someone good to close them. Plenty of admins find it extremely difficult to close any controversial discussions and resort to closing things inappropriately as no consensus which just drags disputes on and on rather than resolving them. We need to encourage the widest possible body of editors who are happy to close a controversial and difficult request as possible - whether or not they are technically admins.

Of note I haven't read the discussion yet so I have no idea whether or not this discussion should be closed as a consensus or not. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The level of respect and general "clout" that admins carry makes their decisions "stick" much better, and so admin closures are generally more satisfactory for the parties involved. NACs leave the door open for "but that discussion wasn't closed by an admin" counter-discussions, and I'm hoping to minimise the trench warfare on the talkpage. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand there aren't exactly a large number of admins with the time to handle difficult disputes - see the lack of volunteers for the abortion closure below. Additionally if someone challenges the response, admin closure or not, then I (or any other closer) should try and explain their closure in more detail - if the person continues to not accept the closure then it seems perfectly reasonable for them to raise an objection here or to another appropriate venue for a triumvirate to re-evaluate the closure. That shouldn't be a big deal - we all make mistakes regardless of whether one is or is not an admin. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I have volunteered to do it, but I am not an admin - if an admin wishes to do so instead jump in before Friday. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:MassResistance#Robocalls

It appears that my common consent the discussion has ended. Would an uninvolved editor have a look at the discussion to determine whether there is consensus to include the proposed text? StAnselm (talk) 11:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: Not every thread needs to be closed by an uninvolved editor, especially one that was opened only 4 days ago. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?

Background: The Monty Hall problem page is the location of the longest-running content dispute on Misplaced Pages. There have been 1.3 million words posted to the talk page over a period of ten years without any resolution. It is an observable phenomena that multiple editors with backgrounds in science or math have joined the discussion and concluded that there is a consensus for their position, only to be followed by another editor with a science or math background coming to the same conclusion concerning a completely different position.

This has been to all or most of our noticeboards and venues for mediation, including arbcom. This particular RfC was specifically tailored so that the two most active disputants agreed that the two proposals matched their positions, and they both volunteered without being asked to withdraw from the dispute if the RfC showed a consensus for the other position.

Just closing this RfC with a quick count is likely to result in another ten years and another million years of arguing. What we really need in this case is for an uninvolved closer to carefully review the RfC (and perhaps some of the spillover into the MHP talk page) and state explicitly whether either of the main disputing parties has a consensus, and how this applies to how all involved should behave going forward. It might be useful if, after the closer writes up the summary, one or more uninvolved editors add a brief statement of concurrence just so everyone is clear about the result. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages namespace

Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese)#RfC on spelling and Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese)#Other options

Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese)#RfC on spelling (initiated 18 July 2012) and Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese)#Other options? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have been renamed to Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese)#RfC on spelling. Cunard (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive765#BLP edit warring on British Jews

Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive765#BLP edit warring on British Jews, particularly the section at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive765#Proposal: User:Bus stop topic-banned from Jewish categorisation, broadly construed. After closing the discussion, consider moving it back to WP:ANI so the community is aware of the decision. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see also John Carter (talk · contribs)'s close request at Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 10#Requesting closure of recently archived thread regarding possible sanctions against User:Bus stop. Cunard (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Geo Swan and AfDs

Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Geo Swan and AfDs? There are three proposals there: (i) Proposal to slow down a bit at AfD, (ii) Proposal to topic ban Geo Swan, and (iii) Proposal to refer to Arbcom. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• The whole thread was moved on September 5 to a subpage at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/GeoSwan and AFDs. There were two further comments that day, but nothing since then. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for the link to the discussion. In addition to assessing the proposals, a findings of fact and advice like TParis (talk · contribs) provided at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive767#TenPoundHammer, AfD and WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT would be very helpful in summarizing the discussion. Cunard (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Proposal: Character notability guidelines

Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Proposal: Character notability guidelines (initiated 3 August 2012)? There is a request to close the RfC at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Close this RfC?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Record charts#Bubbling Under

Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Misplaced Pages talk:Record charts#Bubbling Under. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#RFC: Names with diacritics and other non-ASCII letters: Should we permit, require, or prohibit ASCIIfied versions?

Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#RFC: Names with diacritics and other non-ASCII letters: Should we permit, require, or prohibit ASCIIfied versions? (initiated 23 July 2012)? See also the comment at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#RfC closure: "Time to ask an uninvolved admin to close this RfC?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Categorization of persons

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Categorization of persons? Please also consider John Carter (talk · contribs)'s comment at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Categorization of persons#Possible wrapup:

I think that it would make sense, sometime in the future, to have the request for comment here be gone over by someone, possibly uninvolved, who could "boil down" the various comments into clear proposals.

This could facilitate a Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Categorization of persons 2, which would have a clearer scope and outcome. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Move review/Log/2012 September 13#Tenedos

Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Move review/Log/2012 September 13#Tenedos? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'd love to! ;) Drmies (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Bommarillu/1

I believe that this was closed incorrectly, because Talk:Bommarillu shows that the discussion is still open after a years time. BollyJeff | talk 16:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

..or maybe the header at Talk:Bommarillu was not updated properly after the reassessment. I think that 'no consensus' may mean the same as 'keep' in this context. BollyJeff | talk 19:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Internal consistency versus consistency across articles

This RfC opened on September 1 and was closed on 4 October by Nathan Johnson after a request here. Noetica has twice reverted the closure, asking that an admin close it, so this is a request that an admin endorse or overturn Nathan's closure.

The RfC was about this sentence: "An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole." The question is whether the words "though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole" should be removed or retained.

Thirty people responded:

• Thirteen supported the removal of those words: Noetica, 86.160.221.242, SMcCandlish, Ohconfucius, Boson, Dicklyon, Tony, Neotarf, Mirokado, Br'er Rabbit, 128.127.107.10, 87.79.226.106, and Rreagan007.
• Seventeen opposed the removal: Enric Naval, Quiddity, Amatulić, Binksternet, Shenme, Darkfrog24, jc37, CBM, Peter coxhead, Beyond My Ken, JIMp, Resolute, Hiding, 87.112.91.134, Jayron32, WhatamIdoing, and myself.

Many thanks, SlimVirgin 16:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

See my explanations and corrections, posted just now toward the end of the sprawling RFC section (not necessarily within the material that SlimVirgin has recently sought to close off). Technically, the RFC was closed already by the BOT. That, according to WP:RFC, is one way RFCs come to an end. I acted in good faith, where the proposer of the RFC had allowed it from the start to descend into disorder – needing attention from Neotarf, a far less experienced editor, to fix what SlimVirgin would not. And I too had to remedy the continuing irregularities, to keep the thing transparent, fair, and navigable.

☺

Noetica 23:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The point behind WP:CLOSING a discussion is to get an outside editor to produce a summary of the consensus (if any). All the bot does is stop listing the discussion on the central pages. People post here when they want an uninvolved admin to summarize the discussion and determine whether consensus was reached. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Just pointing out that the reason that this is the reason no one wants to close discussions. They spend several hours reading the discussion, summarizing it, only to get reverted by one of the ideologues. Close at your peril. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Other namespaces

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 11#Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights

Open for nearly three weeks, last comment was over a week ago. Consensus seems pretty clear, but an official result would be helpful so that we can start talking implementation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Premature close requests

• None currently.

Thanks to closers

Thank you, Drmies (talk · contribs), Beeblebrox (talk · contribs), TParis (talk · contribs), and Jafeluv (talk · contribs), for your RfC closes. Although the previous section was moved to Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Comments from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure main page, I'd rather place the thank you note here so it will be more visible to RfC closers. Cunard (talk) 07:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Drmies (talk · contribs), Dennis Brown (talk · contribs), TParis (talk · contribs), Hobit (talk · contribs), Joe Decker (talk · contribs), Sven Manguard (talk · contribs), Sandstein (talk · contribs), Beeblebrox (talk · contribs), NULL (talk · contribs), Jafeluv (talk · contribs), Tijfo098 (talk · contribs), Nathan Johnson (talk · contribs), BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs), Electriccatfish2 (talk · contribs), and Moe Epsilon (talk · contribs), for your closes. Cunard (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Administrative backlog