Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:32, 22 December 2014

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Template:Active editnotice

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

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.

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

• Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• 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:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers/Log
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive367#RfC_closure_review_request_at_Talk:Rajiv_Dixit#RFC_can_we_say_he_peddaled_false_hoods_in_the_lede

(Initiated 19 days ago on 5 December 2024) - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 11 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Requests for comment

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Mentoring process

(Initiated 223 days ago on 15 May 2024) Discussion died down quite a long time ago. I do not believe anything is actionable but a formal closure will help. Soni (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 78 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_massacres_and_genocides_in_the_lead

(Initiated 77 days ago on 8 October 2024) Expired tag, no new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. Also see: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard topic. Bogazicili (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Not sure if anyone is looking into this, but might be a good idea to wait for a few weeks since there is ongoing discussion. Bogazicili (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Request_for_comment:_Do_the_guidelines_in_WP:TPO_also_apply_to_archived_talk_pages?

(Initiated 69 days ago on 16 October 2024) Discussion seems to have petered out a month ago. Consensus seems unclear. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Needs admin closure imho, due to its importance (guideline page), length (101kb), and questions about neutrality of the Rfc question and what it meant. Mathglot (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

And in true Streisand effect fashion, this discussion, quiescent for six weeks, has some more responses again. Mathglot (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 57 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)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Grey_Literature

(Initiated 44 days ago on 10 November 2024) Discussion is slowing significantly. Likely no consensus, personally. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 was very clearly rejected. The closer should try to see what specific principles people in the discussion agreed upon if going with a no consensus close, because there should be a follow-up RfC after some of the details are hammered out. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727  13:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: Still working on this? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Ugh… in practice, no. I'm still willing to do it, but it's in hiatus because of the three(!) pending challenges of my closures at AN, while I evaluate to what extent I need to change how I approach closures. If somebody else wants to take over this, they should feel free. —Compassionate727  22:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Taking a pause is fair. Just wanted to double check. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

asking for an update if possible. I think this RFC and previous RFCBEFORE convos were several TOMATS long at this point, so I get that this might take time. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#RFC_on_signing_RFCs

(Initiated 41 days ago on 13 November 2024) - probably gonna stay status quo, but would like a closure to point to Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• Done Soni (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Check Your Fact

(Initiated 41 days ago on 13 November 2024) RfC has elapsed, and uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#RfC Indian numbering conventions

(Initiated 38 days ago on 16 November 2024) Very wide impact, not much heat. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• Consensus seems clear, I don't think my Indian-ness poses a WP;COI here, closed. Soni (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of fictional countries set on Earth#RfC on threshold for inclusion

(Initiated 34 days ago on 20 November 2024) TompaDompa (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (music)#RfC about the naming conventions for boy bands

(Initiated 16 days ago on 8 December 2024) No further participation in the last 7 days. Consensus is clear but I am the opener of the RfC and am not comfortable closing something I am so closely involved in, so would like somebody uninvolved to close it if they believe it to be appropriate.RachelTensions (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable closing a discussion on a guideline change this early. In any case, if the discussion continues as it has been, a formal closure won't be necessary. —Compassionate727  13:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#RfC: Should a bot be created to handle AfC submissions that haven't changed since the last time they were submitted?

(Initiated 39 days ago on 15 November 2024) This RfC expired five days ago, has an unclear consensus, I am involved, and discussion has died down. JJP_Master (she/they) 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Len_Blavatnik#RfC:_NPOV_in_the_lead

(Initiated 8 days ago on 16 December 2024) RFC is only 5 days old as of time of this posting, but overwhelming consensus approves of status quo, except for a single COI editor. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The CoI editor has now accepted that consensus is for the status quo, but I think a formal close from an uninvolved editor, summarizing the consensus would be helpful, since the issue has been coming up for a while and many editors were involved. — penultimate_supper 🚀 16:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

yes, despite multiple posts to WP:BLPN, WP:NPOVN, WP:3O, several talk page discussions, and now an RFC, I doubt the pressure to remove word oligarch from the lede of that page will stop. An appropriate close could be a useful thing to point at in the future though. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox country#Request for comment on greenhouse emissions

(Initiated 88 days ago on 27 September 2024) Lots of considered debate with good points made. See the nom's closing statement. Kowal2701 (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 32 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)

Talk:Chloe Melas#RFC on allegation of making a false allegation (resubmission)

(Initiated 30 days ago on 24 November 2024) The bot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an independent close. TarnishedPath 23:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi (A)

Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion has now been relisted thrice. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 16#Category:Origin stories

(Initiated 23 days ago on 2 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727  15:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 14#Template:Support-group-stub

(Initiated 11 days ago on 14 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727  15:17, 24 December 2024 (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 91 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:LGBT history in Georgia#Proposed merge of LGBT rights in Georgia into LGBT history in Georgia

(Initiated 79 days ago on 7 October 2024) A merge + move request with RM banners that needs closure. No new comments in 20 days. —CX Zoom 20:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump

(Initiated 69 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Tesla Cybercab#Proposed merge of Tesla Network into Tesla Cybercab

(Initiated 67 days ago on 18 October 2024) This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. N2e (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Stadion Miejski (Białystok)#Requested move 5 November 2024

(Initiated 49 days ago on 5 November 2024) RM that has been open for over a month. Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:JTG Daugherty Racing#Requested move 22 November 2024

(Initiated 32 days ago on 22 November 2024) Pretty simple RM that just needs an uninvolved editor to close. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 17:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Williamsburg Bray School#Splitting proposal

(Initiated 27 days ago on 27 November 2024) Only two editors—the nominator and myself—have participated. That was two weeks ago. Just needs an uninvolved third party for closure. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... BusterD (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 57 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)

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

Close Review Request after overturn and reclose

I request a review of the closes at Village_pump_(proposals)#Media_Viewer_RfC_Question_1 and Village_pump_(proposals)#Media_Viewer_RfC_Question_2 to determine whether the closers interpreted consensus incorrectly. Alsee (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Background

A previous on this same RfC resulted in virtually unanimous Overturn. Then Edokter preformed a half-close on just part 2 (which I find faulty in itself) and which created this mess of two half-closes on a single RfC. Cenarium then preformed the remaining half-close on part 1.

The current RfC is intimately related to the prior RfC June_2014_RfC which established a 93% consensus that Media Viewer should be disabled by default for logged in users, and 81% consensus that Media Viewer should be disabled by default for non-logged-in users. Consensus can change, however there has been no redebate of that question for good reason. Supporters do not waste time initiating redebate in order to not-change standing consensus, and Opposers do not waste time initiating redebate when they know that the result is going to go against them. June_2014_RfC is a standing consensus result. No action had been taken on that outcome due to Superprotect. When Superprotect was withdrawn, there was a raging debate in the community whether any admin would, or should, simply step up to implement June_2014_RfC as a standing consensus-action. Many people were arguing respect for consensus itself, arguing that RfC result be implemented as a simple consensus-action. Others argued against it. The first part of this RfC was established as a place for the community to engage in that debate. The question was "Should we reaffirm and implement the previous RfC: WP:Media_Viewer/June_2014_RfC". This question was an exact reflection of the debate I saw in the community. Part of the reason for the RfC was to inhibit any supporter from taking action, as a formal debate was underway to carefully decide how to proceed. If the first part of the did RfC pass, the second part asked if the community wanted include terms that we should try to work with the WMF before taking action. The second part would issue a Formal Community-Consensus request that MWF do it for us. The second part explicitly proposed a ban on community-action-to-implement for the duration.Alsee (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Part 2 close review

I attempted discussion with the closer Edokter on his talk page. He was entirely non-responsive there. He did briefly comment here on Administrator's Noticeboard, but he immediately went non-responsive. I was literally in the middle of posting a formal Close Review request on his half-close when I saw that part 1 got closed. I informed him of my intent to challenge his close, but that I was holding that action to investigate the new part 1 situation.

edit This closer wrote a Misplaced Pages Signpost article promoting Media Viewer. He also posted on the talk page of the original RfC. He was against it, and gave his strong views that it would not be implemented. He called this RfC "poison", and stated that he feared admonishment if he closed it the way he wanted. I can see no good-faith reason for him to preform an improper half-close on part 2 of this RfC, when a closer going his way could have simply written "No effect" for part 2. He took the option of working with the WMF off the table, and cornered a part-1 closer into either disregarding the majority or issuing a close to immediately implement without notice to the WMF.

Part 2 had 6 bullet points, and overall ended with tiny majority support. The closer properly closed as no-consensus on bullet point 6 (I botched #6 during drafting, it was only supposed to note the expiration of the 7-day hold). However there were several Support-all-but-#6 votes in the Oppose section, as well as Oppose-only-#6 votes. That establishes solid support for 1-through-5, and the closer essentially notes that they are worthy of proper consideration for consensus. A closer needs to offer a good explanation if he does not follow the majority. He gave the astounding explanation that he simply didn't want to bother!?! More specifically his explanation was "There is no prejudice to implement any other of the terms, as they do not require any consensus per se". That a poor rationale for denying #2 (saying the results should be delivered to the WMF), that is wrong on #3 #4 #5 (issuing a Formal Community Consensus request to the WMF), that is a HUGE error on #1 (imposing a temporary ban on community action to implement). Note that he deliberately declined to close the first part of the RfC. Had the first part passed (and it still could under review), Edokter's failure to issue consensus on #1 could have resulted in someone acting on media viewer as a consensus action, without notice to the WMF, when there was a consensus to prohibit such action. Alsee (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss part 2 close review

Alsee, where during the progress of the RFC did you mention that you had "botched #6 during drafting" or seek to withdraw or amend it? If I had seen you do so, I could have raised objections to the remainder. As it was, for the sake of brevity, I only discussed the greatest failing in the proposal. If you think that was an "Oppose-only-#6 vote", you are in error. NebY (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

NebY, You have raised an excellent point. I explicitly did so in this diff.

Note to Closer and everyone. Many of the Opposes on Q2 are clearly Opposed to an "implement" result on Q1, rather than opposed to adding a 7-day hold on the implement from Q1. If it helps firm up a consensus-close, the final bullet point from Q2 could be implicitly or explicitly dropped. The close could say something to the effect of "Consensus to reaffirm and, after a 7 day hold, to implement RfC:Media_Viewer/June_2014". Alsee (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I added bolding to the key section. The closer explicitly considered my proposal to drop the poorly-drafted final bullet point. He offered an absurd explanation for rejecting it. Alsee (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I also contacted him on his talk page after the close, again requesting As noted in the discussion section, consensus can be reached on part 2 by dropping the final bullet point of part 2. Notice that the closer never even responded on his talk page, not until after I notified him on my intent to file a close review request due to his active non-responsiveness. At that point he did respond, telling me to stop "badgering" him. The closer was actively hostile, and actively ignored discussion. Alsee (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note that I had also added more info in the Part 2 close review section. Look for the blue (edit) showing the addition. Alsee (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Alsee the diff you provided - thank you - is not from the RfC discussion and was not addressed to those who participated in it, nor does it mention or even hint that you "botched" the RfC or considered it "poorly drafted". It appears that you only considered dropping point #6 when you saw the close and thought the RfC might have passed without it, and that even then you did not think it had been a mistake to include #6; after all, it was precisely that firm action that the entire two-part RfC was designed to produce. You thought to speak loudly and wield a big stick, but the stick is broken and it's time to accept that you did not find the great chorus of support you expected. NebY (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

A few observations :

• the close of part 1 as written would make the close of part 2 moot
• the close of part 1 is not bound by the close of part 2 since no consensus was found in part 2
• the text about media viewer in the technology report was a quote of a WMF announcement
• looks to me like a lot of those things are overblown.

Cenarium (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, if the part 2 is reversed and part 1 isn't, I endorse the part 2 falling to you to resolve. It never should have been split between two different closers. Alsee (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Then maybe you should not have split the RfC into two questions. Frankly, the entire language with which you crafted the RfC looks like it was designed to force a consensus your way, with nested and circular conditions, dependancies and legalese throughout. Any commenter (and closer) had to read the questions very carefully in order to understand the implications his/her comment would have. I closed #2 as is because you did not ammend or change it, and I considered all the comments, which clearly showed lack of consensus for implementing all point in #2 as a whole, because that is what all commenters were responding to. -- ] {{talk}} 13:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Part 1 close review

RfC Question 1 ended 75 Support 36 Oppose. More than 2 to 1 support.

I attempted discussion with the closer Cenarium on his talk page. I was the third person to show up objecting to his close. We had extended discussions, but I ended them when it was clear that further discussion of abnormalities in his analysis would be fruitless.

The point where I gave up re-explaining my original concern was just after he explained which votes he struck for cause, and his cause for doing so. The closer stated that he struck "As per other-person" votes as somehow invalid. That is not merely abnormal, that horrifying. People use "As per" as a quick way to effectively copy-paste the arguments listed by someone else. The fact that two people present the same valid argument for their position is certainly not valid cause to strike the second person from participation, and strike them from contributing to consensus. I most dearly hope the closer has not been doing that in his other closes.

The original and main abnormality that I was trying to discuss with this closer was the exact same problem in the original overturned close. I'll just quote my challenge to the original close, with one small strike:

The question debated at RfC was Should we reaffirm and implement the previous RfC: Media_Viewer/June_2014_RfC.... I feel the best way to address the issues here is to request a close which addesses the outcome seperately and specifically on #1 "Reaffirm June_2014_RfC" and #2 "Implement June_2014_RfC". The closer mis-evaluated the question and misapplied the RfC responses, generating the close "there is no consensus to implement opt-out by default on MediaViewer at this time". Based upon that incorrect closing issue, the closer asserts a 70% threshold for consensus on a software setting change. Many participants in the RfC were crystal clear that this RfC did not (and could not) establish a new consensus on opt-in vs opt-out. It is is clear error to close on an issue that participants explicitly state is not currently being debated.

The only difference between this time and last time, is that this time the closer himself points out the problem this creates. The central theme of the closer's explanation, one which he repeats and stresses, is that this RfC did not contain the sort of discussion and debate needed for a closer to directly analyze and issue a consensus on the media viewer setting. And after noting that he can't evaluate and issue a new consensus on that, he proceeds to do so anyway. After changing the question, and finding no debate on the changed question, the closer is cut free from the debate that did happen and wanders off with his views on the issue that wasn't debated. The closer is using the absence of debate on a not-debated-question in order to incorrectly issue a no-consensus on the not-debated-question. Example:

Support. WP:Consensus can change, but it is up to someone else - and WMF is certainly invited to do so - to make a new RfC to see if that's the case. Until then, we have a consensus, and it needs to be implemented properly. VanIsaac 00:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This person doesn't even mention media viewer, exactly because media viewer isn't being debated. He's presenting an argument that any standing consensus should be implemented. It is perverse for the closer to use his deliberate silence on an issue not-being-debated as justification to issue a no-consensus on the issue not being debated.

It is especially troubling when the closer is trying to claim that his off-target against-the-numbers no-consensus result has the effect of reversing the outcome of a previously an established 93% consensus. Alsee (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss part 1 close review

• Speedy keep. Can we please be done with all this? The issue's been going on since early in the Northern Hemisphere summer, and reviews of reviews of are a bit much. I haven't looked at Alsee's position and have no idea whether the close is in line with my views on the MediaViewer issue; my opinion here is simply that this is comparable to continued AFDs of an article, problematic simply because the continued discussions get in the way. Nyttend (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• I haven't seen much of a problem with a string of counter-consensus closes with AFDs, though, and it's fairly clear that this RFC is being closed against consensus based on a "let's not rock the boat" philosophy.—Kww(talk) 14:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Nyttend if you want to compare this to a second AFD, the comparison is to an AFD that SUCCEEDED and someone else came a long and recreated the article. If the first AFD was valid then there's a good chance the second one is as well. Alsee (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• It was again closed by some spineless lackey of guy with overeager kowtowing to the WMF, that desperately want this extreme anti-community behaviour of the WMF hidden as far from public as possible. The consensus was clear, the first RfC was to be affirmed. There's not a single reason besides "The WMF will not listen to the community in any event, so why bother?" If we kowtow to those guys'n'gals in San Francisco all the time, we can just give up pretending that this project is a community project at all. ♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 14:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I was asked to be more civil, but it's very hard to be civil with people, who demonstrate extreme uncivilness like the closers of this RFCs with clear consensus absolutely opposite to what's proclaimed by them. Consensus is clear, was clear, and it's as well clear that the WMF is on an extreme hostile path against the communities and doesn't want to be bothered with community input. The main (and perhaps only) reason for MV was: It was the first major project of that team in SF, so it had to be implemented come what may. ♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 15:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Get rid of mediaviewer. Get rid of it. I don't really care what all of this is, but what I do know, is the consensus in the original RFC was established, the consensus in the RFC to affirm that RFC was 2-1, and this RFC is obviously to implement mediaviewer. Let's get rid of it! Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 14:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• I was preparing to close this (needed a few hours free in a row) and was glad to see someone else did. I was planning on closing with "Tell WMF that the community would like this to be opt-in" as it isn't clear at all the community has the authority to do that itself. But I'd not finished thinking about it. Not a satisfying close, but a reasonable one. I don't _think_ I ever participated in this discussion (I don't recall being involved ever, but apparently I was because I got notified about this) and I honestly don't care about the outcome. Hobit (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Hobit I notified you because you commented on the first close review. The fact that you *didn't* participate in the RfC itself makes your evaluation particularly valuable. Alsee (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• RFCs sometimes end up going a way their proposer doesn't like. This is a thing that happens, because it's rare that everyone commenting in an RfC thinks in lockstep with the individual who started it. I can understand Alsee being annoyed that he put a lot of effort into these RfCs and didn't get the results he wanted, but again...that's a thing that happens. We don't reverse RfC closes because we don't like them or because we would have closed differently; we would only reverse them if there is obvious error or malfeasance (and in a case of malfeasance, it's likely to be Arbcom's remit more than AN's). Barring those things, there's nothing stopping you from waiting a month or two and opening a new RfC, if you're convinced it would go differently next time; that's far more likely to get you results than demanding constant re-litigation of closes already done.

  Specific to this case: Both closes appear adequately-reasoned to me; while there is room for disagreement on whether either of them was an ideal close, or whether they weighted points the way I or Alsee might weight them, there's nothing obviously defective that jumps out from either of them. Cenarium, especially, provided extensive explanation of how his decision was reached and, again, while you or I might close it differently, his explanation provides sufficient support for his close. Edokter's close also appears reasonable; the proposal was for items 1-6, and the voters reached no consensus to implement steps 1-6. An adapted proposal striking step 6 could have been put forward and the voting re-started, but it wasn't, and it wouldn't make sense to close based on "some people thought they were voting on this thing, but some other people decided to vote on this other thing that wasn't proposed, so everyone was voting on something different, but I'm going to pick one that only some people voted on and act like everyone was voting on that." That's a common problem that arises in RfC-type discussions, and it nearly always leads to exactly this: a split vote and no consensus. The usual response is to sit back, regroup, and next time, try to craft a proposal that addresses the issues that split the last one. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• (e/c)The OP should 'WP:drop the stick- multiple closers have closed against your prefered outcome - so drop the stick, and live with it, as policy counsels, and as we must all do from time to time. Endorse. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Also, the OP again demonstrates a misunderstanding of wp:consensus and WP:NOVOTE - "per" votes don't add any more reasoning, and votes do not matter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• This is a severe problem when we have something complex for admin closure, by definition the more hasty closers are likely to be those that close, where as the more thoughtful and painstaking closers will be left behind. This is not to say that these closes are necessarily incorrect. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC).
  

  Cenarium has pointed out that he spent a considerable time (30 hours?) on this close. Let me make it clear that I was not finding fault, simply raising what seemed to me to be a deeper issue. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC).
  

  Thanks for the clarification, although I should note that most of it were reading (and a bit of testing) since I was inactive during the events and wanted to get up to date for other reasons as well. Cenarium (talk) 13:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse close, especially Cenarium's detailed and well-written close (which is what Alsee demanded last time, BTW), and {{trout}} Alsee for admin-shopping. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Oiyarbepsy, please do not misrepresent "what I demanded last time". I literally quoted what I wanted last time. This closer exactly repeated the error, and I'm asking for the exact same thing I asked for last time. I'm asking for a close that accurately reflects the debate. I'm asking for a close analyzes and issues some sort of result on "Reaffirm June_2014_RfC" and some sort of result on "Implement June_2014_RfC". Alsee (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Chill. Whatever is being asked here is unclear ('counter', 'overturn', wah…). This likely indicates things have gotten bogged down somewhere. If whatever needs asking again, then please try to phrase the question simply, clearly and accessible to all (eg. Should Media Viewer (a new way to view pictures) be enabled by default on the English Misplaced Pages?). If the problem is instead bureaucratic/sysadmin/WMF/etc objection then, I presume the techniques used by German Misplaced Pages can be used. And yes, things may change over-time and one needs to reassess after a suitable break—for instance, I've stuck with Media Viewer since it's release; I only (selfishly) disabled the Media Viewer last weekend when I had some image work to do and tested whether it would be more efficient to disable the viewer in the short-term. So, chill-out, step-back, contemplate the higher-level overview from a distance, it may be that the process (whatever the previous/latest outcome) is snagged on something else. Likely all that is required is a small UI tweak to make it "good enough" for most people, if that's the case lets focus the energy there and contribute civilly, cooperatively and positively. —Sladen (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn close It's pretty clear the admin went against consensus , but yet insisted that consensus supported his close, which it didn't. Overturn. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn close on both. Part 2 gave no rationale for going against the majority, and part 1 shouldn't have tried to issue a close on an issue that wasn't being debated. Alsee (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Alsee, you already stated your vote - you should indent your comment and label it Comment so it does not look like you are stacking (if you do so, you can delete this comment, too). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you refering to the close review request itself? Alsee (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Closer response I closed the first part of the RFC, while Edokter closed the second part earlier. It seems that Alsee is hell bent on making the point that the question of whether we should reaffirm and implement the July RFC on the media viewer default status bears no relation to the question of which media viewer default status we should use now. As if it were a purely formal issue on the relevance of the July RFC, as if the situation had not changed since then, as if the current community's stance on media viewer is irrelevant. This is a deeply flawed notion, rejected by the voters in this RFC. For reasons independent of the community's will, the consensus in the July RFC could not be implemented at the time. The situation has significantly evolved since then, to argue on a purely wikilegal basis, without taking into consideration any of those developments, without any more regard for the underlying issue, is a pointless endeavor that has been implicitly or explicitly rejected by the vast majority of commentators. Alsee did in fact acknowledge that we should reinterpret the question in light of the present situation (notably, the consultation and the improvements made to media viewer), I quote "The RfC clearly asks people to review that outcome , and people can intelligently respond based upon that outcome.". Yet, now, probably because the consensus to disable media viewer by default has dwindled enough that it's difficult to make a case for it, Alsee backtracked from this assertion, saying that people didn't actually agree with it, I quote "I fully respect that argument and I actively invited it in the RfC. However participants overwhelming rejected that argument as wrong or irrelevant.". This is clearly false, the vast majority of commentators expressed their view on the underlying issue, i.e. which media viewer default status we should use now, which for Alsee is a (I quote) "utterly trivial issue". It is a fact that the narrow question of reaffirming the previous RFC was debated by only a minority of commentators (half a dozen, the few votes that Alsee selectively quotes), the large majority of commentators actually commented on media viewer, Alsee himself did. The obvious truth is that, contrary to Alsee's claim, in order to answer the question of whether we should reaffirm and implement the July RFC on the media viewer default status, we need to answer the question of which media viewer default status we should use now.

The community has consistently rejected the kind of pseudo-legal argument that would bind us to a decision on an issue without actually examining the issue at hand, and that's exactly what voters did here, they commented on the substance, and expected the outcome to be determined on the substance, disproving the wikilegalistic theory that is being promoted by Alsee now in order to sidetrack the real debate which didn't show the results he expected. More than 90% of votes with a rationale commented on media viewer itself, so for Alsee all of those are irrelevant and should be discounted. Whether he wants it or not, for voters, this RFC was on the media viewer default status, the comments show this, there's just no way of wikilawerying that fact away, and there was no consensus to disable it by default for either registered or unregistered users, so there was no consensus for implementing the previous RFC because it was the determining factor. Independently, there was no consensus for reaffirming the previous RFC, due to the lack of comments on this specific issue and the fact almost all voters implicitly or explicitly tied this question to the former. It isn't the closer's fault that the voters commented on an issue that was not exactly the issue that was being asked to be debated by the initiator, or only a subset, it is the initiator's fault for not having understood that the community is, by tradition, more concerned with the substance than the form. It was proper to close on the media viewer default status, since it is overwhelmingly the subject being debated in the RFC and it was necessary in order to answer the question being asked. Now, concerning my 'horrifying' discount of 'per votes', I mentioned those as not contributing to my analysis of arguments, which is kind of obvious since they don't bring any new argument to the table, they were considered when weighing arguments though. I do not believe that Alsee will ever be satisfied with a result that doesn't give him what he wants: as we have seen, he has wikilawyered to such an extent as to contradict his own previous statements, he accused the other closers of bad faith, his opponents in the RFC of bad faith... Yet, many, if not most, of those people were likewise flabbergasted by the WMF's actions, and voting oppose in this RFC, or failing to reach consensus on implementing the previous RFC, is in no way an endorsement of those actions, as I've made clear in my closing statement there is consensus that the WMF acted rashly and with disregard to the community. With regard to the future, I've actively invited the WMF to publish feedback on the latest media viewer version and address the main issues people have. If in a few months there are still concerns, a new RFC properly reviewing the situation (not just a vote) can be held.

TLDR : To determine consensus on the question being asked, it was necessary to determine consensus on the underlying issue, and the lack of consensus on the later implied the lack of consensus on the former. Cenarium (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I never said people commenting on Media Viewer were "irrelevant and should be discounted", I explicitly stated they should be included! People were debatating whether it would be wise to follow through with consensus, given the MWF's (temporary) blocking of that consensus. Comments on media viewer itself are legitimate reasonable contributing arguments in that debate. In answering that question many participants deliberately did not comment on Media Viewer itself, they saw no need to. Participants who did comment on Media Viewer often only offered a superficial comment on Media Viewer (which your close stresses repeatedly). You cannot ignore what was being debated, and you cannot use the legitimate absence of debate-on-another-question (which you stress) as an excuse to ignore what people DID debate and issue a no-consensus on an issue participants weren't debating. Anyone who thought consensus might have changed could simply Oppose. The result was more-than-2-to-1 Support for following through on an established consensus. It is perverse to issue a "no consensus" the not-debated question and claim that is has the effect exactly opposite of the original established consensus and exactly opposite to the clear consensus here. I'm simply asking for what I asked for after the first overturned close - an examination and close on "Reaffirming and implementing an established consensus". Only 31% 32% called that consensus into question, or opposed following through on it. Alsee (talk) 04:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

But I did answer this question, in my closing statement, I first mentioned that you had acknowledged the importance of the new developments, and later, I pointed out that the consensus was no longer standing, as you just recognized yourself. If my closing statement was mostly focused on media viewer, it is because it was, by far, the most important, and certainly the determining factor in whether the July RFC should be reaffirmed and implemented. Cenarium (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

In the RfC preamble I ensured that participants could take into account both the Superprotect matter and the Consultation matter. If any participants had concerns that the original Consensus was somehow "no longer standing" that is obviously good reason to Oppose Reaffirm and Oppose Implement. At most 32% had the view that the original result might no longer be an accurate reflection of consensus. And as Supporters noted, anyone with a good-faith-belief that consensus actually had changed should run an RfC seeking to establish a new consensus. That's how consensus works, that's how consensus has always worked. People who agree with an established consensus don't waste time re-debating it to not-change-consensus, and people who don't like a consensus don't waste time re-debating it to not-change-consensus when their true belief is that consensus hasn't changed.

In an AFD where the article-writer promises improvements, it is a routine matter for people to consider the promised improvements and to vote Delete because the improvements wouldn't matter. Are you suggesting that you would close any AFD as no-consensus simply because the article-author promised improvements, and the Oppose-delete-minority said they wanted to see how the improvements turned out? Alsee (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I am asking for an admin to restore S Marshall (talk · contribs)'s close of Talk:Cultural Marxism#Re-proposal. S Marshall started his close by writing:

RGloucester (talk · contribs) showed a callous lack of respect to S Marshall when he reverted S Marshall's carefully considered close with the objection "Object to closure by non-administrator". It is well established practice and policy that:

The purpose of this policy is to allow non-admins to put great time and care into closing controversial discussions without the fear that anyone can sweep away their hours of work with a revert.

If the summary overturning of S Marshall's RfC close is allowed to stand, non-admins will be less likely to close RfCs in the future because any editor can revert them. This would be a shame since Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure needs their help. Please restore S Marshall's RfC close without prejudice to a closure review here at WP:AN if any editors object to the close's accuracy.

Having read the discussion and as a neutral admin with no previous participation in the topic and no opinion over the final result, I am prepared to certify S Marshall's closure of the discussion. If no objection is presented to my status as a neutral party, I'll close the discussion within the next hour. Also I fail to see how S Marshall's status as a non-admin has any bearing on the legitimacy of his closure. —Dark 01:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog