Misplaced Pages

:Closure requests: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:04, 31 May 2021 editSdrqaz (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators26,796 editsm Marking discussions closed by Starship.paint as done← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:33, 5 January 2025 edit undoClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,377,321 editsm Archiving 4 discussions to Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive 39. (BOT) 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{no admin backlog}} {{admin backlog}}
<!-- <!--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Line 5: Line 5:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
--> -->
{{redirect|WP:CR|text=You may be looking for ], ], ], or ]}} {{redirect|WP:CR|text=You may be looking for ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]}}
{{redirect|WP:ANC|text=You may be looking for ]}}
{{Noticeboard links | style = border: 2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin: 2px 0; | titlestyle = background-color: #AAD1FF; | groupstyle = background-color: #CAE1FF; }} {{Noticeboard links | style = border: 2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin: 2px 0; | titlestyle = background-color: #AAD1FF; | groupstyle = background-color: #CAE1FF; }}
] ]
{{Archive basics {{Archive basics
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 32 |counter = 37
|archiveheader = {{Aan}} |archiveheader = {{Aan}}
|maxsize = 256000 |maxsize = 256000
Line 18: Line 19:
|format= %%i |format= %%i
|age=4368 |age=4368
|archivenow=<!-- <nowiki>{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}},{{resolved,{{Resolved,{{done,{{Done,{{DONE,{{already done,{{Already done,{{not done,{{Not done,{{close,{{Close,{{nd,{{xXxX</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}} }}{{Archives|auto=short|search=yes|bot=ClueBot III}}
{{Shortcut|WP:CR|WP:ANRFC|WP:RFCLOSE}} {{Shortcut|WP:CR|WP:RFCL|WP:ANRFC}}


<section begin=Instructions/>The '''Closure requests''' 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 appears unclear, where the issue is a contentious one, or where there are wiki-wide implications, such as when the discussion is about creating, abolishing or changing a ]. <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 ]).


] '''Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.'''
]
'''Many discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed here.'''


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.
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 earlier. However, editors usually wait at least a week after a discussion opens, unless the outcome is ], so that there is enough time for a full discussion.


] '''Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.'''
On average, it takes two or three weeks after a discussion has ended to get a formal closure from an uninvolved editor. When the consensus is reasonably clear, participants may be best served by ''not'' requesting closure and then waiting weeks for a formal closure.


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'''.
]
'''If the consensus of a given discussion appears unclear, then you may post a brief and neutrally-worded request for closure here'''; be sure to include a link to the discussion itself. ''Do not use this board to continue the discussion in question''. A ] is available to make listing discussions easier.


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.
If you disagree with a particular closure, please discuss matters '''on the closer's talk page''', and, ''if necessary'', request a ] at the ]. Include links to the closure being challenged and the discussion on the closer's talk page, and also include a policy-based rationale supporting your request for the closure to be overturned.


] '''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'''.
See ] for previous closure reviews.


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


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


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.
A ] from February of 2013 discussed the process for appealing a closure and whether or not an administrator could summarily overturn a non-administrator's closure. The consensus of that discussion 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.


'''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.
To reduce editing conflicts and an undesirable duplication of effort when closing a discussion listed on this page, please append {{tlx|Doing}} to the discussion's entry here. 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. A request where a close is deemed unnecessary can be marked 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}}.<section end=Instructions/>
{{cot|title=Technical instructions for closers}}
Please append {{tlx|Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{tlx|Close}} or {{tlx|Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{tlx|Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{tlx|Not done}}. '''After addressing a request, please mark the {{tlx|Initiated}} template with {{para|done|yes}}.''' ] will ] requests marked with {{tlx|Already done}}, {{tlx|Close}}, {{tlx|Done}} {{tlx|Not done}}, and {{tlx|Resolved}}.
{{cob}}
'''If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here'''. Instead follow advice at ].

<section end=Instructions/>
{{TOC limit|4}} {{TOC limit|4}}
]

== Other areas tracking old discussions ==
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


== Requests for closure == == Administrative discussions ==
<!-- <!--
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
Please add new requests to the ''bottom'' of the appropriate section! If none of the sections apply, you may need to add one, since the section heading may have been deleted or hidden. The "initiated date" should be the date the discussion began, not when the closure request is made. Thanks!


*** PLEASE don't archive old discussions yourself! &nbsp;Let a bot do it. &nbsp;Archiving the done close requests triggers the bot to do other essential things. ***
-->
Place new administrative discussions below this line using a level 3 heading -->
{{See also|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}}
<!--Please add new backlog requests to the appropriate section! Thanks!-->

=== Administrative discussions ===
====Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 4 heading ====


=== ]===
{{initiated|17:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)}} challenge of close at AN was archived ''']''' - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (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}} {{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}


=== Requests for comment === == Requests for comment ==
<!-- <!--
Please place entries ordered by the date the RFC was initiated (oldest at top) Please place entries ordered by the date the RFC was initiated (oldest at top)


Please ensure you add the {{initiated|*date here*}} template when placing a request here Please ensure you add the {{initiated|*date here*}} template when placing a request here
-->
====]====
{{initiated|19:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)}} There's been a lot of contention over the cricket notability guidelines, with large numbers of AfDs recently causing much discussion within the project and outside of the project, and the RfC period has just ended. I'm requesting a formal closure from someone uninvolved in the discussion and who hasn't been majorly involved in the discussions at ] as we're keen as a project to potentially implement the proposal, or work on different changes if not implemented. Further details on the proposal can be found above the RfC. ] (]) 10:18, 2 May 2021 (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. ***
====]====
-->
{{Initiated|22:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)}}
Well-advertised on ], this RfC has important policy implications that will benefit from a formal closure. ] (]) 10:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
*In my view, that discussion intersects with Trust & Safety and the current anti-harassment RFC to such a large extent that it should either be closed by Maggie Dennis personally, or by a panel that includes her, or by an independent community member who has received her feedback prior to closing.—]&nbsp;<small>]/]</small> 10:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
*:T&S has no mandate to set community policy. The board can set their own policies that override community ones, but seem to have no intention on setting policies on multiple and/or privacy accounts. That specific discussion is a community process, so any suitably experienced volunteer should feel free to close it. ] (]) 11:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
*::Don't really agree with that: I think that the whole point of (legitimate) undisclosed alternate accounts is to avoid harassment.—]&nbsp;<small>]/]</small> 13:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
*:::Right, and various policies and proposals try to do the same. They're almost all community policies, made and enforced. This is the same; it's an issue about amending a community policy, discussed by volunteers, and should be closed by any suitable community member, the same as any other discussion. If the WMF wants to setup a Board policy on this and thinks the community's views will be helpful, they could read the discussion or the summary of the consensus reached (ie, 'the close'). ] (]) 12:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
* <s>{{t|not done}}</s> I looked at this with a view to closing it. I don't think there is any issue with closing the RfC, personally. The RfC initiator said "I've not proposed specific wording, this is more about looking for consensus on the ideas, the wordsmiths can get in there and create the appropriate wording if such a consensus is reached". However, no consensus was reached about whether changes to the status quo are in fact desired, let alone what specific changes. I actually don't think a formal closure is beneficial; users are free to start a fresh discussion in future. If you still believe a formal closure is beneficial, please clarify what it will achieve? ] (]) 19:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
*:@]: If there was no consensus, and frankly when I've read that discussion I do see a consensus even if it's not identical to one of the three options that first was offered, that can be a close. But this was a centrally notified discussion which a nice level of participation and consensus can be reached about an outcome even if policy change language would then need to be identified and workshopped. Considering that this is a longstanding policy a NC would be significant. A well worded and thoughtful close helps to give shape and structure to what next steps would be for interested editors. I would ask that you reconsider this idea that it is not a discussion that needs to be closed. Best, ] (]) 20:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
*::{{re|Barkeep49}}: Thank you. On reconsidering this, I've reversed the "not done"; a detailed closure is needed after all for the reasons you have said. For the avoidance of doubt, I was open to reconsidering, which is what prompted my question and my choice not to alter the archive tag. ] (]) 17:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
*:{{re|Ncmvocalist}} I support a closure for the same reasons as Barkeep. Given the number of editors that have been blocked under PROJSOCK, clarification on this issue of policy is important moving forward. If you feel you <del>can't</del> <ins>don't want to</ins> close it, I would encourage you to remove the <code><nowiki>|done=yes</nowiki></code> parameter so that <del>an</del> <ins>another</ins> uninvolved editor can. ] (]) 21:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
*::That won't prevent this thread from being archived, you need to remove or disable the {{tlx|not done}} to achieve that. {{para|done|yes}} means "no further action"; {{tlx|not done}} means "this may be archived because it will not be carried out". --] &#x1f339; (]) 22:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
*:::{{re|Sdrqaz}}: I understand that as a participant in the RfC that you would like a particular outcome, but as a matter of courtesy, you might want to consider how your last sentence reads. I am an uninvolved editor and already said "I don't think there is any issue with closing the RfC, personally". My initial view not to formally close was not about whether one can or can't, but rather, what the closure would achieve, as I already asked. ] (]) 17:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
*::::{{re|Ncmvocalist}} As a participant of course I'm involved, but (believe it or not) if it doesn't get closed in the way I !voted I wouldn't mind. ], after all. Given you used the {{tl|Not done}} template instead of {{tl|On hold}} or {{tl|MoreInfo}}, it seemed like you were declining to close the discussion, and said you didn't {{tq|think a formal closure is beneficial}}. I didn't mean to imply that you weren't uninvolved (nor was I questioning your closing ability) and have amended my comment accordingly. ] (]) 09:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
*:::::{{re|Sdrqaz}} no worries, thank you; I'll take that on board. ] (]) 17:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
*:I also support a closure, because this is an important discussion which could have wide ranging implications. I encourage Ncmvocalist to remove the not done to prevent this being archived without a closure.] (]) 22:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
*:I've deactivated the done tag, since there seems to be a consensus above that a closure is preferable (and I agree). ] (]) 22:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
*::{{re|Jackattack1597}} It might have been misunderstood, but I didn't intend for this to be archived as yet - as I expected a response to my question before deciding whether to let this be archived or to formally close this. Subsequently, someone else thinking that I might have forgotten. In any case, thank you ] for deactivating it. ] (]) 17:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
*:::{{replyto|Ncmvocalist}} That edit did not {{tq|add the archive link}}, please read my post of 22:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC). The {{para|done|yes}} parameter of {{tlx|initiated}} does two things, and no more: it de-colours the "Initiated X days ago on 15 April 2021" text, and instructs the template not to put the thread in {{cl|Administrative backlog}}.
*:::It was {{diff|Misplaced Pages:Closure requests|prev|1025109536|your own edit}} that marked this thread for archiving, and all I did was tidy up an inconsistency, which was hardly a bold action. See the last paragraph of ] that was presented to you when you posted here. --] &#x1f339; (]) 14:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
*::::{{replyto|Redrose64}} Ah right; thank you for clarifying what the parameter/edit actually does, as I was mistaken above. Your post of 25 May 2021 actually said {{tlx|Not done}} template means "this {{tq|may}} be archived because it will not be carried out" and that the {{para|done|yes}} parameter indicates "no further action"; I read this to be consistent with my understanding that the archival isn't guaranteed if the parameter isn't inserted. I didn't see the changes that were made over the last year to the notice you have linked to, but it currently says that {{tlx|Not done}} means "this {{tq|will}} automatically archive". In future, I'll use the {{tlx|On hold}} template instead. ] (]) 17:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
*:::::I intended "no further action" to be read as "no further action on this thread is required by any living human", but that seemed to contain much that was redundant. I suppose that if taken to its ultimate conclusion, "no further action" could be interpreted as "nobody, not even archiving bots, is to do anything with this thread, it must be left set in stone for all eternity". We don't really want that, I think.
*:::::As an example of how ClueBot III operates, see {{diff|Misplaced Pages:Closure requests|prev|1025465733|the edit immediately following your last post here}} - in that edit, three threads were archived, of which two have both {{para|done|yes}} and {{tlx|done}}, whereas the third has only {{tlx|not done}}. It is clear that for the third thread, ClueBot III has picked up on the presence of the {{tlx|not done}}, whilst the lack of {{para|done|yes}} has not influenced the bot. --] &#x1f339; (]) 19:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


=== ] ===
====]====
{{initiated|22:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)}} Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. ] (]) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
{{initiated|12:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)}}
Thanks.—]&nbsp;<small>]/]</small> 23:21, 30 May 2021 (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)
{{Initiated|09:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)|done=yes}}
:{{a note}} This is a ] and subject to ]. - ] (]) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Uninvolved editor needed please. Thanks. --] (]) 22:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
* {{re|George Ho}} - {{Done}} ''']] (])''' 03:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC) :'''] ''''']'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)</small>


=== ] ===
==== ] ====
{{Initiated|19:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)}} RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. ] (]) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
{{Initiated|23:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)}}
Requesting uninvolved closure here please. ] (]) 13:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


=== ] ===
* I closed one proposal ({{re|Nick Moyes|ProcrastinatingReader}}), '''there is one more proposal left to close'''. ''']] (])''' 04:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
{{Initiated|16:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)}}
Clear consensus that the proposed edit (and its amended version) violate ]. However, the owning editor is engaging in ] behavior, repeatedly arguing against the consensus and dismissing others' rationale as not fitting his personal definition of synthesis; and is persistently assuming bad-faith, including . When finally challenged to give a direct quote from the source that supports the proposed edit, it was dismissed with "" and then The discussion is being driven into a ground by an editor who does not (nor wish to) understand consensus and can't be ] with any opposing argument supported by Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines. --] (]) 22:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


=== ] ===
==== Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading ====
{{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)
<!-- Place this line below the heading:
:{{a note}} Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. ] (]) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (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:Intiated/doc for a list of codes.
=== ] ===
-->
{{initiated|04:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)}} Legobot has removed the RFC tag and the last comment was a couple of days ago. Can we please get a independent close. '']''<sup>]</sup> 10:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

=== ] ===
{{initiated|02:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)}} Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Last comment was a couple of days ago. Can we get an independent close please. '']''<sup>]</sup> 11:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

=== Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading ===
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}} {{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}
<!-- Place this line below the heading:
{{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 === == Deletion discussions ==
{{XFD backlog|right}} {{XFD backlog|right}}
=== ] ===
==== Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 4 heading ====
{{initiated|21:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)|type=xfd}} ] ] 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

=== ] ===
{{initiated|00:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)|type=cfd}} <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

=== ] ===
{{initiated|03:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)|type=cfd}} <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

=== Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading ===
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}} {{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}


=== Other types of closing requests === == Other types of closing requests ==
<!-- <!--
Please place entries ordered by the date the discussion was initiated (oldest at top). 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. Please ensure you add the {{initiated|*date here*}} template when placing a request here.

*** 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. ***
--> -->
====]====
{{initiated|12:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)}}
Quite an old merger discussion, that could to with an uninvolved close. Thanks. ] ] 08:38, 25 May 2021 (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)
{{initiated|01:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)}} Note to closer: there were also two other relevant discussions, ] and ]. — ] (]) 23:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


=== ] ===
====]====
{{initiated|08:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)}} Not a formal RFC, but this discussion attracted plenty of attention anyway. It has been open for over a month now with no new comments since the end of April. ] 18:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC) {{initiated|11:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)}} Experienced closer requested. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)


====]==== ===]===
{{initiated|13:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)|done=yes}} For now the consensus for a move is clear. Would like for someone uninvolved to close this. ] (]) 21:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC) {{initiated|14:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)}} This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. ] (]) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:I think it would be better to leave that discussion be. There is no consensus one way or the other. I could close it as "no consensus," but I think it would be better to just leave it so that if there's ever anyone else who has a thought on the matter, they can comment in that discussion instead of needing to open a new one. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 14:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)


===]===
* {{re|Avilich}} - {{done}} ''']] (])''' 04:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
{{initiated|29 October 2024}} There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. ]] 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


===] ===
==== ] ====
{{initiated|12:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)}} The discussion went stale for almost two weeks. Uninvolved editor is needed. ] (]) 05:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC) {{initiated| 21:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC) |type=rm}} RM that has been open for over a month. ] (]) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
==== Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 4 heading ====
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}


===]===
]
{{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)

===]===
{{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)

=== Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading ===
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}

Latest revision as of 00:33, 5 January 2025

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.
"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Cleanup resources, Misplaced Pages:Categorizing redirects, Misplaced Pages:Copyrights, Misplaced Pages:Competence is required, Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, Misplaced Pages:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction. "WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Assume no clue.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Archiving icon
    Archives

    Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
    11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
    21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
    31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Technical instructions for closers

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

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


    Other areas tracking old discussions

    Administrative discussions

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

    (Initiated 22 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 20 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 89 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 68 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

    (Initiated 59 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 50 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 43 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Talk:Matt Gaetz#RFC: Accusations of child sex trafficking and statutory rape in the lead

    (Initiated 37 days ago on 28 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC tag and the last comment was a couple of days ago. Can we please get a independent close. TarnishedPath 10:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

    Talk:Death of Mahsa Amini#RFC: Referring to Masha Amini as Kurdish-Iranian in the lead

    (Initiated 36 days ago on 29 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Last comment was a couple of days ago. Can we get an independent close please. TarnishedPath 11:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Deletion discussions

    XFD backlog
    V Oct Nov Dec Jan Total
    CfD 0 0 22 0 22
    TfD 0 0 7 0 7
    MfD 0 0 2 0 2
    FfD 0 1 14 0 15
    RfD 0 0 29 0 29
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0

    Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 November 27#File:The Musician (Erling Blöndal Bengtsson) by Ólöf Pálsdóttir.jpg

    (Initiated 38 days ago on 27 November 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    (Initiated 16 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    (Initiated 15 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 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 102 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    (Initiated 80 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 78 days ago on 18 October 2024) This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. N2e (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

    I think it would be better to leave that discussion be. There is no consensus one way or the other. I could close it as "no consensus," but I think it would be better to just leave it so that if there's ever anyone else who has a thought on the matter, they can comment in that discussion instead of needing to open a new one. —Compassionate727  14:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

    (Initiated 68 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:Stadion Miejski (Białystok)#Requested move 5 November 2024

    (Initiated 60 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:Israel–Hamas war#Survey

    (Initiated 59 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)

    Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

    (Initiated 38 days ago on 27 November 2024) Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Categories: