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 19:27, 12 July 2012 editRcsprinter123 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, IP block exemptions, Rollbackers81,825 editsm →Misplaced Pages:BON#Marking_inactive_bots_so← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:36, 1 January 2025 edit undoPaine Ellsworth (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors255,733 edits →Deletion discussions: chronological order + correct timestamps 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{no admin backlog}}
<noinclude>__NEWSECTIONLINK__
<!--
{{adminbacklog}}
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
{{Noticeboard links}}
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of this page and not up here.
{{shortcut|WP:ANRFC|WP:AN/RFC}}
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
{{archive box|box-width=250px|
-->
image=]|
{{redirect|WP:CR|text=You may be looking for ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]}}
:'''], ]'''
{{redirect|WP:ANC|text=You may be looking for ]}}
}}</noinclude>
{{Noticeboard links | style = border: 2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin: 2px 0; | titlestyle = background-color: #AAD1FF; | groupstyle = background-color: #CAE1FF; }}
]
{{Archive basics
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 37
|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
|maxsize = 256000
}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive
|format= %%i
|age=4368
|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}}
|headerlevel=3
|maxarchsize=256000
|minkeepthreads=0
|numberstart=16
}}{{Archives|auto=short|search=yes|bot=ClueBot III}}
{{Shortcut|WP:CR|WP:RFCL|WP:ANRFC}}


<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 ]).
== Requests for closure ==
<includeonly>''This section is transcluded from ].''</includeonly><!--


] '''Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.'''
IF EMPTY, PLEASE PLACE THIS LINE BELOW:


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.
*''There are no requests for closure''
PLACE REQUEST FOR CLOSURE AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS LIST -->


] '''Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.'''
=== Nation of Islam RfC ===
Could an uninvolved administrator close the RfC at ]. Thank you. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 13:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
:I've restored this request after it . I believe a close is necessary to answer the question the RfC posed: "Should the first sentence of the article use the narrative voice to describe the Nation of Islam as an antisemitic, black supremacist organization, or should such descriptions be attributed to critics of the organization?" Arguments and edit wars may arise again in the future over this issue if is not settled by a close. ] (]) 18:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
::Thank you. This issue isn't likely to go away. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 18:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


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'''.
=== Another request for closure ===
:<small>Moved from AN. ] (]) 19:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)</small>
I would like someone to look at ]; there is a "view" subscribed to by a large enough number of editors at ] and a move to close at ]. Editor in question has had ample opportunity to show a dedication to cease disruptive editing (in this case, filibustering and stalling) and has not seized that opportunity. This has been running since 12 May. Thank you in advance. ] (]) 15:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


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.
<small>(below comments merged from a duplicate request) <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-size:0.75em">– ] <span style="display:inline-block;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1em">‹]›<br/>‹]›</span></span> 06:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)</small>
::<small>Moved from later on this board. ] 19:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)</small>
:After attempting multiple times to get some sort of acknowledgment of the issues at hand we see a widining circle of disruption on multiple pages (Now at WP:SPI) therefore I request an uninvolved admin to step in and close down the soapbox. In no way am I advocating for any action to be taken in response to the contents of the RfC/U. I am simply asking for the closure as it is obvious to me that there will be no negotiated agreement between the certifiers and the respondant. ] (]) 19:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
::This is a duplicate of the request above. What's the appropriate action here? Strike, remove, leave it here? <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-size:0.75em">– ] <span style="display:inline-block;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1em">‹]›<br/>‹]›</span></span> 06:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
:::Scratch that, I'll just merge them together. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-size:0.75em">– ] <span style="display:inline-block;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1em">‹]›<br/>‹]›</span></span> 06:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


] '''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'''.
=== ] and other requests ===
] has a severe backlog; the oldest entries date from January.
Would an admin (or admins) review:
{{collapse top}}
#]
#]
#] - {{done}} by {{user|Hu12}} ] <sup><font color="#E3A857">]</font></sup><sub> <font color="#008000">]</font></sub> 18:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#] - {{done}} by {{user|Amatulić}}. ] <sup><font color="#E3A857">]</font></sup><sub> <font color="#008000">]</font></sub> 01:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
#]
#]
#] - {{done}} by {{user|Hu12}}. ] <sup><font color="#E3A857">]</font></sup><sub> <font color="#008000">]</font></sub> 09:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
#] - {{done}} by {{user|Hu12}}. ] <sup><font color="#E3A857">]</font></sup><sub> <font color="#008000">]</font></sub> 18:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
After reviewing an entry, please post a comment on the requester's talk page because the requester may no longer be watching the page after such a lengthy period of time. ] may be useful. Thank you, ] (]) 02:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


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.
===]===
Would an admin assess the consensus at ]? The RfC is listed at ] and no discussion has occurred since 18 May 2012. Thanks, ] (]) 06:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


]
===]===
'''Any ] may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.'''
Would an admin assess the consensus at ]? The RfC was listed and archived from ] and the last comment was on 20 May 2012. Thanks, ] (]) 06:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
:This request for closure has now been up here for over thirty days. Is there no one who is willing to close this? -- ] 22:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


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.
=== ] ===
Could some admin please summarize this and preferable choose one of the options rather than leaving it to go on to another long dispute. There is a request below it to update the page with one of the options but with the proposer saying they will dispute what they are proposing! I am happy with that if it is a definite decision of the RfC rather than a basis for further dispute. The RfC hasn't been touched for the last day and doesn't seem to be attracting contribution so if you'd like to contribute instead please do. The page will be unprotected tomorrow and I fear if some definite decision isn't reached it will be back to what led to that. ] (]) 21:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
:Could someone please come along and close the RfC thanks. ] (]) 17:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


'''Non-admins can close ''most'' discussions'''. ] your ] just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions ], or where implementing the closure ]. ] and ] processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.
===]===
{{cot|title=Technical instructions for closers}}
Would an admin close ]? The discussion was initiated on 18 April 2012 and was listed on ]. If there is a consensus to implement the proposal, would an admin file a ] requesting the implementation? Thanks, ] (]) 17:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
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}}.
:'''Comment''' Discussion has been archived to ]. ] <sup><font color="#E3A857">]</font></sup><sub> <font color="#008000">]</font></sub> 07:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
{{cob}}
::There's a discussion right now at ]. If there is not significant opposition, I'll file a Bugzilla request. ]] <sup>]</sup> 17:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
'''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}}
Would an admin assess the consensus at ]? The discussion was initiated on 10 May 2012 and was listed at ]. ] (]) 17:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
]


== Other areas tracking old discussions ==
=== RfC on political topic ===
* ]
Sensible, diplomatic admin needed to close a 3 month old RfC at ]. --] (]) 16:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


== Administrative discussions ==
=== ] ===
<!--
Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 20 May 2012)? The discussion is listed at ]. Thanks, ] (]) 19:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Please place entries ordered by the date the discussion was initiated (oldest at top)


Please ensure you add the {{initiated|date here}} template when placing a request here
===]===
This RfC ran for 30 days and became rather heated towards the end, with considerable incivility, edit warring, and even an ANI thread. Would someone take a look to determine consensus, please? ] (]) 09:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
:But the poll started 8 June 2012, so it hasn't been 30 days yet? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
::There was no consensus to begin a poll; one editor (acting in good faith but with bad judgment, imo) initiated it unilaterally, multiple editors objected to it, and its launch marked the beginning of serious contentiousness in the RfC. I supported waiting 30 days before closing the RfC—I think there's considerable precedent for that—but I can see no reason to extend an RfC simply because an editor decides to add a poll two weeks into it. ] (]) 18:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
:::I, the initiator of the poll, started it because the RfC went off course and was turning into name calling and other off topic things. The poll was intended to bring the focus back onto the question at hand. I personally would prefer to keep it open because of the issues. But if it is closed now I wouldn't object. I would however ask the closing admin take a look at the comments section closely because it appears to me that there is no real consensus in either way because several commentators stated they preferred a different image than the current one despite posting in the no image section. --<span style="font-family:lucida sans, sans-serif;">] <span style="font-size:85%;">(] • ])</span></span> 21:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
::::Huh? The RfC and the poll both show an overwhelming consensus ''against'' having an image in the navbox template, in terms of the strength of arguments and in sheer numbers against the image. How you can possibly interpret this overwhelming consensus as "no real consensus" is very strange. In fact, none of the arguments ''for'' an image in the template have even attempted to rebut the arguments against it, and can only be interpreted as "I like it", which isn't a valid argument. ] (]) 01:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
::::I second that "Huh?". There is very clear consensus to remove the image. ] (]) 00:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
::::Agreed. There's clearly consensus to remove the current image. The question of whether to use any image at all is somewhat less cut and dried (although opinion is leaning against it), but there's no reason to maintain the presence of an image there's consensus to remove while that second question is determined. ] (]) 01:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


*** 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 -->
Would an admin summarize the discussion at ] (initiated 23 March 2012)? An RfC was held under a subsection at ] (2 May 2012). Thanks, ] (]) 19:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


=== ]===
: It's not clear what a summary would accomplish here. The discussion ran from 23 March to 18 May, with a sense that options for ] were considered, & some discarded. This led to a straw poll that ran from 15 May to 3 June when {{u|Kaldari}} closed the poll & determined the results. No further discussion on this subject appears on that page. If any further discussion took place elsewhere, there is no link on that page to it. -- ] (]) 17:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
{{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}}


== Requests for comment ==
::Okay, I withdraw this close request as the discussion was superseded by a poll that determined the changes. However, would you (or another uninvolved admin) review the poll at ]? Kaldari was an involved administrator because he participated in the poll. To ensure that there are no disagreements in the future about what the consensus was because an involved editor closed the discussion, would an uninvolved admin endorse Kaldari's close if they agree with it or modify it if they don't? Thanks, ] (]) 18:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
<!--
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
=== ] ===
Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 18 May 2012)? The discussion was listed at ]. Thanks, ] (]) 19:21, 21 June 2012 (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. ***
Also, could some gadgets be enabled that allow unread changes to be displayed differently on the watchlist, using the CSS from ]? That seemed to be a position that received support in the RfC. My suggestion would be to have gadgets to enable bolding or a subtle underscore, as those received the most support. ]] <sup>]</sup> 17:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
-->


===]=== === ] ===
{{initiated|22:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)}} Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. ] (]) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at ]? Initiated 27 May 2012, the discussion was listed and archived from ]. Thanks, ] (]) 23:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
:The RfC was initiated by an arbitrator. I am not sure that the ArbCom intends it to be closed by a random administrator. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
::I have asked Arbitrator {{user|SilkTork}} to take a look. ] (]) 19:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
:::The Committee are in discussion on the matter, but the RfC was not an ArbCom initiative, it was started by a Committee member, but acting as a community member, as was made clear by one of the clerks - ]; as such any uninvolved admin may close the RfC with a summary of the discussion that the Committee will take on board. I took part in the discussion, so it would be inappropriate for me to close it. ''']''' ''']''' 19:46, 7 July 2012 (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)
Would an admin assess the consensus at ]? Initiated 8 June 2012, the discussion was listed and archived from ]. The last comment was made on 14 June 2012. Thanks, ] (]) 23:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
:{{a note}} This is a ] and subject to ]. - ] (]) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (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)
Would an admin assess the consensus at ]? Initiated 13 June 2012, the discussion was listed and archived from ] because of inactivity. Thanks, ] (]) 23:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


===]=== === ] ===
{{initiated|10:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)}} ] (]) 19:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Intelligent, sensitive and well reasoned closure needed of this fairly problematic thread. ]·] 23:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


===]=== === ] ===
{{Initiated|16:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)}}
Closure needed of this discussion. Several proposals have been mooted, all with varying levels of support, but there are divides that don't seem likely to be breached by further discussion, so a neutral closure/assessment of consensus is needed. --] (]) 16:30, 7 July 2012 (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)


===]=== === ] ===
The merger discussion must be closed if it slows down. --] (]) 00:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC) {{initiated|16:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)}} ] (]) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


===Requested move of ]=== === ] ===
{{initiated|22:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)}} Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. '']''<sup>]</sup> 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{a note}} Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. ] (]) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


=== ] ===
A ] of ] was opened almost four weeks ago, and after plenty of feedback, there hasn't been anything for a week. Especially since a ] was closed over a week ago, I think there should be enough evidence for an administrator to rule without fear of disenfranchising anyone. Thanks, ] (]) 02:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
{{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)
:I may have spoke too soon. There was just another comment, though it's a vote in the direction the request is probably headed anyway. --] (]) 04:06, 12 July 2012 (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 ===
I think the discussion is in my favour. <font color="#151B8D">''']''' ]</font> <small>@</small> 19:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
{{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 ==
{{XFD backlog|right}}
=== ] ===
{{initiated|21:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)|type=xfd}} ] ] 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

=== ] ===
{{initiated|23:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)|type=xfd}} ] ] 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

=== ] ===
{{initiated|16:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)|type=xfd}} If there is consensus to do one of the history splitting operations but the closer needs help implementing it I would be willing to oblige. ] ] 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}}

== Other types of closing requests ==
<!--
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 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|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|11:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)}} Experienced closer requested. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 13:57, 27 November 2024 (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)

===]===
{{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| 21:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC) |type=rm}} RM that has been open for over a month. ] (]) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

===]===
{{initiated|25 November 2024|type=rm|done=yes}} I request that Admins address this discussion that has been going around in circles for more than a month with no clear resolution. There is a consensus that the current article title is wrong but myriad inconclusive ideas on a solution. This is a second request for Admin help and little was accomplished the first time except false accusations. ---<span style="font-family: Calibri">]<small> (]&#124;]) </small></span> 17:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{close}} by editor {{ut|Sennecaster}}. ''''']'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>01:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)</small>

===]===
{{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)

===]===
{{initiated|22:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)}} Has been open for nearly a month, I have !voted here so requesting an uninvolved closure. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:56, 30 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 01:36, 1 January 2025

"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 18 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 16 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 85 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 64 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 55 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)

    Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_Al-Manar

    (Initiated 46 days ago on 15 November 2024) Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    Talk:Team Seas#Re: the ocean pollution additions

    (Initiated 46 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:List of fictional countries set on Earth#RfC on threshold for inclusion

    (Initiated 41 days ago on 20 November 2024) TompaDompa (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    Talk:Israel#RfC

    (Initiated 39 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 34 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 33 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 3 0 3
    TfD 0 0 0 0 0
    MfD 0 0 1 0 1
    FfD 0 1 3 0 4
    RfD 0 0 20 0 20
    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 34 days ago on 27 November 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 December 2#File:Batman superman.PNG

    (Initiated 29 days ago on 2 December 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Est. 2021/sandbox/CURRENT

    (Initiated 26 days ago on 5 December 2024) If there is consensus to do one of the history splitting operations but the closer needs help implementing it I would be willing to oblige. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    (Initiated 12 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 12 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 98 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 76 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 74 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 64 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 56 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:Expectation of privacy (United States)#Requested move 25 November 2024

    (Initiated 37 days ago on 25 November 2024) I request that Admins address this discussion that has been going around in circles for more than a month with no clear resolution. There is a consensus that the current article title is wrong but myriad inconclusive ideas on a solution. This is a second request for Admin help and little was accomplished the first time except false accusations. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

     Closed by editor Sennecaster. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  01:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

    (Initiated 34 days ago on 27 November 2024) Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Talk:Super two#Proposed merge

    (Initiated 25 days ago on 6 December 2024) Has been open for nearly a month, I have !voted here so requesting an uninvolved closure. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Categories: