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 18:38, 7 August 2015 editSunrise (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,185 edits OneClickArchiver archived Module talk:Main#Print titles of related articles to [[Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 18#Module talk:Main#Print titles of related article...← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:26, 29 December 2024 edit undoBogazicili (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,665 edits →Requests for comment: request for closure at Talk:Genocide 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{no admin backlog}}
<!-- <!--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of this page and not up here. New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of this page and not up here.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-->

{{redirect|WP:CR|text=You may be looking for ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]}}
--><noinclude>
{{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:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 18 |counter = 37
|archiveheader = {{Aan}} |archiveheader = {{Aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 256000 |maxsize = 256000
}}
}}{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive
|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive
|format= %%i |format= %%i
|age=7200 |age=4368
|archivenow=<nowiki>{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}},{{resolved,{{Resolved,{{done,{{Done,{{already done,{{Already done,{{not done,{{Not done,{{close,{{Close</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|age=90}} }}{{Archives|auto=short|search=yes|bot=ClueBot III}}
{{Shortcut|WP:ANRFC|WP:AN/RFC}} {{Shortcut|WP:CR|WP:RFCL|WP:ANRFC}}


The '''Requests for closure 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 remains unclear, where the issue is a contentious one, or where there are wiki-wide implications. <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 ]).
]
'''Many discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed here.'''


] '''Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.'''
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 early. However, editors usually wait at least a week after an RfC opens, unless the outcome is ], so that there is enough time for a full discussion.


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.
]
'''If consensus is unclear, then post a neutral request here for assistance.'''


] '''Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.'''
Please ensure that your request for a close is brief and neutrally worded. Please include a link to the discussion. Do not use this board to continue the discussion in question. Be prepared to wait for someone to review the discussion. If you disagree with a particular closure, do not dispute it here. You can start discussion at the original page or request a ] at ] with a link to the discussion page and the policy-based reason you believe the closure should be overturned. See ] for previous closure reviews.


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


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.
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.


] '''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'''.
A ] discussed how to appeal closures and whether an administrator can summarily overturn a non-administrator's closure. The consensus was that closures should not be reverted solely because the closer was not an administrator. However, special considerations apply for ] and ]—see ] and ] for details.


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.
Once a discussion listed on this page has been closed, please add {{Tl|Close}} or {{Tl|Done}} and a note to the request here, after which the request will be archived.</noinclude>
{{TOC limit|4}}


]
== Requests for closure ==<includeonly>
'''Any ] may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.'''
:''These requests for closure are ] from ].''</includeonly><!--


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.
Please add new requests to the bottom of the page! Thanks!


'''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}}
{{See also|Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Backlog|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:Files for deletion#Old discussions|Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files#Holding cell|Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#Old business}}
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}}.
<!--Please add new backlog requests to the appropriate section! Thanks!-->

===XfD===
==== CfD backlog ====
There are currently '''''many''''' open discussions, including some from early April. Please see the list at ].

Thanks to those who have closed the oldest ones from January to March in recent weeks. – ] '''<font color="#FF0000">]</font>'''] 08:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

* It's a nearly a month after the previous message and the backlog has only increased in the past month. '''Please help!!''' ] (]) 20:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
:: Another few weeks and April is at least cleared. The May backlog has piled up. -- ] (]) 21:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

===Administrative===
===Requested moves ===
:'']''
Anyone have a mop? Some of the discussions there are backed up all the way from early February. '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 08:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
::Update: situation is much improved, but there's still a six-week backlog of move requests. -- ] (]) 18:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

As of late July 2015, the backlog is still about one month (and some of the ones in the backlog should actually be easy closes; others?... not so much). --] <small>(] • ])</small> 06:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

=== Requests for comment ===

====]====
{{Resolved|1=No action needed; request rescinded. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 16:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)}}
{{ping|Kraxler}} Should be speedily {{em|re-}}closed. It's the {{em|same}} proposal as the previous one (by its only 'Support' !voter) in slightly different wording: merge all the content to ] and wherever else, so the title can be redirected to the ] disambiguation page (same as nom's response to the RM, too). Every objection to the first edition applies to the second, and it raises no new issues, ideas, evidence, anything. It's pure ], and the result sought is literally not possible under policy, because we can't merge completely unrelated topics. This noise is disruptive of the ongoing RM. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 04:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
::This is not really the place for arguments of the merits of the issue, they should be done at the discussion/RfC. A speedy close at this moment (total of 3 !votes) would look like a ], especially by someone who has closed already a similar discussion on the same page. Either somebody else closes it early, or I may have a look at some later time. ] (]) 12:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
:::Fair enough. I'm not meaning to inject merits arguments; it was just that it's rehash of what was closed pretty much moments earlier. It's going nowhere anyway (the proposer has even said so, and appears to have come around), so it won't need a formal close. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 16:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|18 April 2015}}? Please consider ] in your close. Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

====]====
Will an experienced editor assess the consensus at ]? {{Initiated|31 May 2015}} ] (]) 00:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

In view of the contentiousness of this article and of recent disruptive editing, an administrative close may be preferred. ] (]) 01:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

====]====
{{cot|Collapsing struck-out discussion for readability.}}
<s>Nothing new or useful has been added to this discussion for days, and no new comments at all for over a day. There is no point to allowing as picayune a matter as the presentation of a name in an infobox to drag on any longer than it already has, so I request that a determination of consensus be made and that the discussion be closed. The entire article is currently locked down over this issue, so a swift resolution will enable a return to normal editing. Cheers! ] ] 17:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
*There has been 3 new !votes in the last two days and discussion seems quite . If it has slowed a little then I would suggest it is because it is a holiday weekend in the US and people are busy.<br />&nbsp;—&nbsp;] ] 18:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
*** since this was filed.<br />&nbsp;—&nbsp;] ] 19:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
**** The subject of the discussion is a detail too minor to merit more than a week's worth of discussion, and the ''entire page'' is administratively locked pending the outcome of the discussion on this minor detail. Given the high visibility of this article, that favors a quick closure. During the week when discussion was "quite active" it was also highly circular, and contentious to the point that the aforementioned administrative lock was imposed. Lastly, after over thirty editors have weighed in (the "+1 !vote since this was filed" is probably ''because'' this was filed), opinions remain about evenly split, so there is no realistic hope of a consensus being achieved through additional argument. The only outcome of further discussion is likely to be further rehashing of points that have already been made, and a further descent into negativity. ] ] 21:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
*****If the closure ends in a ''no consensus'' then the protection will need to run its full course per ] that was set upon it (another 6 days). If a clear consensus can be had then I would be happy to enforce it, I don't care what goes in the infobox but my concerns are in trying to prevent the edit-warring from breaking out again. If that happens then we will be looking at a one month protection unless the individual edit warriors are handled accordingly.<br />&nbsp;—&nbsp;] ] 23:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
****** A condition unilaterally set by you, and able to be overridden by the community. It appears that you are attempting to ] the entire discussion. I therefore request that you recuse yourself from further administrative involvement in this matter. ] ] 00:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
*******I exercised my discretion per ] and ] as any admin may, following that policy to the letter. It states "Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is ''clear consensus'' (see above)." Further, I this at the ] and there was no uninvolved admin that took exception or asked for this to be altered. On the contrary, it received support by consensus from those that commented. You have !voted and are ] and others have to you as well. This looks like you are trying to do a run around and undermine an administrative action because you don't like it. I'm owning my actions but certainly not that article. There has been one edit request which was handled since it was locked so that isn't a big deal. The one that should recuse is you.<br />&nbsp;—&nbsp;] ] 02:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
******** I have nothing to recuse from, as I am not seeking to take any administrative action in this matter; the only such action that I have undertaken was to undo your ill-considered block of a fellow admin - which, apparently, . You would do well to engage in some self-reflection and consider whether there is really any reason that you need to continue being attached to this matter at all. There are other admins in Misplaced Pages. ] ] 02:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
*********No enmity. I am concerned from your top post "The entire article is currently locked down over this issue, so a swift resolution will enable a return to normal editing" combined with a later post "...opinions remain about evenly split, so there is no realistic hope of a consensus being achieved through additional argument" and I'm drawing the conclusion that you want someone to find a ''no consensus'' just so that page protection might be lifted but that is against the purpose of having the editors work at consensus per ]. It was faulty logic to assume that a no consensus outcome would mean page protection would be nullified prematurely and that is the only real point that I've been making. Well, I do think the request is premature because other !voters may still opine to help achieve some form of consensus. An essay not yet in project space, ] comes to mind. Regarding the unblock, you disregarded consulting me as you should have per policy which took from me the ability to correct my mistake. Another admin came to my talk page and explained about the edit conflict and then I came to address the issue finding that you had already decided on unblocking. It would have been cleared up anyway but I did perceive that you were lacking in respect towards me. I'm not holding onto any grudge though. But now things have the appearance that you are trying to undo another admin action of mine and I'm left wondering why? Just as you have noted about me "whether there is really any reason that you need to continue being attached to this matter at all...", I'm left to wonder the same about you. I didn't initiate the above. Nonetheless, if a no consensus outcome is found upon closure then I would not object to a review of the protection at ANI and whether it remains necessary. I would abide by whatever that consensus may be.<br />&nbsp;—&nbsp;] ] 04:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
********** I made a bad block once; another admin removed it, and I ''thanked'' them for doing so, because the expediency of undoing an errant administrative action outweighed the protocol of waiting to see how I would deal with it. We police each other; there's no one else to do it. With respect to the current infobox discussion, this is the hangover from a dispute that has been going on since 2007. It doesn't need to stretch on further. The discussion is dead, and the idea that a consensus will form in another week is certainly not something that would be suggested by the history of the matter. For the same reason, I have no intention of dragging this back to ANI, to be relitigated in another forum for another week. ] ] 04:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
{{Initiated|26 June 2015}} ] 19:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

* Can I get an uninvolved administrator to look at this? ] ] 00:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
::Strange as it might seem, the more you post and show there is a heated controversy, the less likely you will find takers after only 9 days. ] 04:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
::: {{ping|AlbinoFerret}} - where do you get "only 9 days" from? The discussion began at ] on June 12, which is 23 days ago. It specifically says in the survey section that this is a continuation of the two previous discussions over the past month. ] ] 22:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
::::While discussions on the topic preceded the RFC, the RFC started on June 26th . ] 12:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
::::: {{ping|AlbinoFerret}} - I am troubled by the implication that any editor can basically make any discussion drag on without end by merely creating a new section and rephrasing the question under discussion there as a new RfC. ] ] 20:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I have to take issue with {{U|BD2412}}'s claim above: ''"The discussion is dead, and the idea that a consensus will form in another week is certainly not something that would be suggested by the history of the matter."'' That might be true if we measured consensus by counting votes; but we all know they're !votes, and we don't count them. So consensus must be measured by assessing and weighing the arguments. By that measure, I, for one, see consensus in that discussion. There is an (albeit undocumented) convention clearly and strongly supported implicitly by the community at large for reflecting the article title in the infobox heading, a convention adhered to by the vast majority of our articles, including this article since its inception. No good reason to start ignoring that convention now in this article has been presented. If there was little or no objection to making them different in some case, that would be one thing. But clearly in this case there is objection, so the convention should be followed. That's following consensus. --] ] 19:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
: There's the problem with "undocumented" conventions in a nutshell. We have a status quo ante, and a rule that absent consensus for a change, the status quo ante should continue. We have ] preceding the current dispute that argues all the points of ], but makes not one single mention of a change to the substance of the article. We have a roughly even split in the opinions expressed on the matter, with reasonable arguments being raised on both sides, and an absence of policy mandating a specific outcome. ] ] 20:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
::What's the problem with undocumented conventions? Do we really have to document every convention? Are some conventions so obvious that no documentation is necessary? Isn't this one of them? I daresay this might be the first time it has ever even been challenged. The problem isn't the undocumented convention. The problem is the stubborn refusal of some to acknowledge it. --] ] 21:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
:::An undocumented, unacknowledged convention with many counter-examples isn't much of a convention. ] (]) 22:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
::::With 5 million articles even .01% counter-examples are going to be "many", so having "many" counter-examples is not persuasive evidence against a convention. What you need to do is hit ] at least 10 times and see how often you do or don't get matching titles and info box headings (not including disambiguation and redoing hits without infoboxes). Here we go.
::::* ] {{aye}}
::::* ] {{aye}} (disambiguated title, plain heading)
::::* ] {{aye}}
::::* ] {{aye}} (disambiguated title, plain heading)
::::* ] {{aye}}
::::* ] {{aye}}
::::* ] {{aye}}
::::* ] {{aye}}
::::* ] {{aye}}
::::* ] {{aye}} (disambiguated title, plain heading)
:::: That's about as good as convention gets on Misplaced Pages. --] ] 22:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
::::: {{ping|Born2cycle}} - since you are of the opinion that a policy-based consensus has ''already'' been established, would you agree that it would be appropriate for an admin to close the discussion at this time? There is not going to be any great shift in participation, and the argument has already become circular and repetitive on both sides. ] ] 23:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
::::::Although I believe that that is the correct way to read consensus, in practice many don't seem to do that. Besides, the discussion is ongoing and I don't favor closing ongoing discussions. The normal time for an rfc is often a month, isn't it? --] ] 01:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
::::::: The RM that led to the current dispute was opened on April 26 and closed on May 8, a total of 12 days. I can't imagine why it would take longer to settle the name in the infobox than the name in the article title. ] ] 02:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

--] ] 22:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The issue here is that somebody thought the article should be fully-protected for ''two freaking weeks''. Lift the protection on a probationary basis; anybody who's aware of the contention and takes to edit warring, can quite simply be blocked for disruption. This is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit; it's not the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, ''unless'' two or three people can't keep their cool. ] (]) 21:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
:Oh, I don't see a problem with unlocking the article with the understanding that the infobox heading is to be left alone until this rfc is resolved. --] ] 16:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)</s>
{{cob}} {{cob}}
'''If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here'''. Instead follow advice at ].


<section end=Instructions/>
I am withdrawing my request for closure of this discussion. Cheers! ] ] 14:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
{{TOC limit|4}}
: It'll have been a month by July 26. I'd suggest an Admin close it soon after – it looks to me like there is a measurable consensus now. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 06:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
]
:: Actually, it has already been 6 weeks since the whole infobox discussion began; the survey started a month ago was just the latest iteration of that same discussion. ] ] 15:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


== Other areas tracking old discussions ==
======]======
* ]
Discussion has tapered off and it should be formally closed. ] ]&#124;] 01:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
* ]
:While we're at it, the ] discussion is also ripe for closing. ] ] 15:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


== Administrative discussions ==
====]====
<!--
Removal of ] by bot: the RfC ran for 30 days, not sure what can be concluded at the end of it. --] (]) 23:21, 5 July 2015 (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
====]====
Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus at this RfC – including whether there should be a follow-up RfC (and what should be discussed). {{Initiated|3 June 2015}} - <u>''']''37'''''</u>&nbsp;<span style="font-size:95%;">&#91;]]</span> 02:13, 7 July 2015 (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 -->
The whole discussion has turned into a trench warfare. ] (]) 05:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC) {{Initiated|10 June 2015}}
: This discussion was archive boxed on July 14 after an RfC was opened seeking more input on the topic, though that hasn't had any new input in about 4 days and so probably could be closed. ] (]) 01:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC) {{Initiated|13 July 2015}}


=== ]===
====]====
{{initiated|17:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)}} challenge of close at AN was archived ''']''' - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Could someone please close this RfC that's been open for about four weeks? Thanks.] (]) 02:29, 16 July 2015 (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 ==
====]====
<!--
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|23 May 2015}}? See the subsection ]. Thanks, ] (]) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (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 experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|23 April 2015}}? See the subsection ]. Thanks, ] (]) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (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. ***
====]====
-->
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|15 June 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


=== ] ===
====]====
{{initiated|22:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)}} Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. ] (]) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|28 May 2015|done=yes}}? Thanks, ] (]) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


===] ===
* {{Done}} ] 17:12, 6 August 2015 (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)
:{{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 experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|31 May 2015|done=yes}}? Thanks, ] (]) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


===]===
* {{Done}} ] 16:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
{{Initiated|03:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)}}
Discussion is slowing significantly. Likely no consensus, personally. ] (]) 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. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 03:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
====]====
:{{Doing}} <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 13:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|23 June 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
::{{yo|Compassionate727}} Still working on this? — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 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. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 22:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Taking a pause is fair. Just wanted to double check. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 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. ] (]) 16:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


=== ] ===
====]====
{{initiated|19:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)}} RfC has elapsed, and uninvolved closure is requested. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub></span> 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|18 June 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


:Now ]. An uninvolved closer is still requested. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 21:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|20 June 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


====]==== === ] ===
{{initiated|16:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)}} ] (]) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|14 June 2015|done=yes}}? Thanks, ] (]) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


=== ] ===
* {{Done}} ] 16:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
{{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)


=== ] ===
====]====
{{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)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|12 June 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (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)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|3 June 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


=== ] ===
====]====
{{initiated|08:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}} Support vs Oppose is currently 7 to 14, consensus seems to have been reached and the discussion is heading towards dead-horse-beating territory. ] (]) 14:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|11 June 2015}}? See the subsection, , ]. Thanks, ] (]) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
* {{Stale-small}}. Discussion is in an archive, editors are free to reopen the debate if it is still a live issue. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
:*Reopened to allow for closure. ] (]) 03:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
::*The unarchiving was with the edit summary "don't unarchive ancient discussions". I don't think a discussion last active a month-and-half ago is an "ancient" discussion. RfCs are typically closed between 30-90 days after they're opened. I reiterate my request for a closure because the result could affect what happens to the {{tl|English variant notice}} template. ] (]) 04:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


=== Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading ===
====]====
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|6 June 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
<!-- 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|9 July 2015}} While this RfC has not run the full thirty days, a vote has not been added in 7 days. Requests have been made to close the RfC by editors involved, and the original poster refuses to close it - I'd ask you to look under "Arbitrary Section Break 02" to get a good sense of the willingness of the original poster to work with his fellow editors. An administrator's close would be highly appreciated. Thank you for your time. Cheers ] ] 18:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
=== ] ===
:Please decline this request. This RfC was launched 6 July 2015 and 30 days would be 6 August 2015. Discussion is ongoing. We will be back 6 August 2015 requesting a formal uninvolved third party administrative close since the article is under discretionary sanctions, see you then, thanks. Kindly allow time for wider community feedback. We have no deadline and no reason not to go the full default 30 days and get as much diverse community feedback as possible. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. ] (]) 06:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
{{initiated|00:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)|type=xfd}} ] ] 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::Most of the discussion is now about the clearly improper phrasing and improper canvassing by the proposer. In my opinion, it should be closed as invalid. But, in any case, Comatmebro is correct that no vote ''or comment related to the proposal'' (as opposed to comments about the RfC) has been added in 7 days. — ] ] 08:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
=== ] ===
:::I think it should be closed and HughD should probably face sanctions for cross posting/spamming. ] (]) 14:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
{{initiated|21:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)|type=xfd}} ] ] 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::"should probably face sanctions" Other venues are available to you for your editor behavior concerns. Your comment is off-topic here at this request for closure notice board. Thank you. ] (]) 15:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
=== ] ===
:::"no vote or comment related to the proposal...has been added in 7 days" Not true. Discussion is vigorous. Please see:
{{initiated|23:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)|type=xfd}} ] ] 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::# {{diff2|673122713|02:20, 26 July 2015}}
=== ] ===
:::# {{diff2|673119230|01:43, 26 July 2015}}
{{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)
:::# {{diff2|673117670|01:24, 26 July 2015}}
=== Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading ===
:::# {{diff2|673066249|16:08, 25 July 2015}}
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}
:::# {{diff2|673065153|15:58, 25 July 2015}}
:::# {{diff2|673063319|15:42, 25 July 2015}}
:::That's just the last few days. Additional diffs available upon request. Thank you. ] (]) 15:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC) We'll be back next week, thanks again. ] (]) 15:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
:::: I stated in my original post that no vote had been cast in the last 7 days - which was accurate - I stated nothing about comments related to the proposal. Please do not use my ] to lash out at other editors. Other venues are available to you for that. Your comment is off-topic here. Cheers ] ] 18:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
:::::FWIW I just cast a !vote. --] (]) 18:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


== Other types of closing requests ==
*'''Comment:''' There's an up about this dispute now, as well, alleging canvassing and campaigning by an involved editor. Posting here in case that affects how/when the RFC is closed. ] (]) 16:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
<!--
::At ] reporting user {{u|Springee}} and commenting user {{u|Champaign Supernova}} expressed concern regarding the notification of ] to our colleagues at ]. Since ], we can include {{u|Springee}} and {{u|Champaign Supernova}} in our consensus to close ]. We can hold off on the close of ] until we hear from them. Dialog on ] continues, and the most recent !vote was Sunday 2 August 2015. Thank you. ] (]) 16:55, 5 August 2015 (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.
:::Seeing that I never suggested extending the comment period in order to hear input from members of WikiProject Conservatism, but rather asked you why you never notified that project (you never answered my question, or notified that project), I find your question about how long I would extend the comment period odd. I've never advocated extending it. And neither you or I have any control over when it the comment period closes, since we are both involved parties and can't close it ourselves. Our opinions on when it should close don't really matter at all. ] (]) 00:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
::::Thank you for your reply. You can find my answer in my "initial statement" at the ANI filing, following "] reminds us...", sorry you missed it. As per ], we can extend with consensus. Thanks again. ] (]) 00:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::I do not advocate extending the RFC beyond the standard time frame and I am therefore not a part of any consensus seeking to extend that time frame. ] (]) 00:21, 6 August 2015 (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. ***
* {{done}}, for what it's worth (which is not much). <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
-->
*], please note that the RfC in question is still open. The RfC that was closed was a draft version. If you click on the link at the top of this section it takes you to an RfC that is still open. Thanks, ] (]) 15:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Please, at ] reporting user {{u|Springee}} expressed concern regarding the notification of ] to our colleagues at ]. Since ], please hold off on a formal administrative close of ] until we hear from {{u|Springee}} regarding our option under ] to extend to improve our participation. Thank you! ] (]) 15:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
:], I do not support the above attempt to ] the system in order to extend the life of the RfC. ] (]) 15:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully '''request formal, administrator close''' of this RfC ], since article ] is currently under active '''discretionary sanctions'''. Please see ]. The target article of this RfC, ], is at the intersection of several active arbitration committee findings, including ], ], and ], broadly construed. The article talk page and the RfC discussion has been contentious, generating several ] filings. The additional accountability of a formal administrative close by an uninvolved, neutral administrator is necessary to ensure community confidence in the close. Thank you very much. ] (]) 15:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent new !votes include today 6 August, 2 August, 1 August, and 31 July. Thank you. ] (]) 18:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

====]====
{{Initiated|28 May 2015}} There is some debate about whether or not the wording of the RfC makes sense, which the closer will need to take a look at, but some kind of resolution is still needed. ] (]) 10:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|10 July 2015|done=yes}}? Thanks, ] (]) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

* {{Already done}} Closed by {{u|LavaBaron}} on Aug 4th. ] 16:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] {{Initiated|25 June 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

====] and ]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] and ] {{Initiated|28 June 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|1 July 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (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)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|23 June 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


=== ] ===
====]====
{{initiated|11:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)}} Experienced closer requested. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|2 July 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


===]===
====]====
{{initiated|14:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)}} This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. ] (]) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved editor please assess ] There has been no further debate for 9 days and the editors appear unable to reach an agreement. {{Initiated|5 August 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 13:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
:RfCs usually run for 30 days, for outside editors to weigh in, not just regulars to the page. So, wait a bit and hope others will see the RfC and respond. As a matter of fact, I will add my opinion sometime today. ]&nbsp;]] 08:34, 6 August 2015 (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)
The questions are (1) were there problems with the first review, and, (2) should the article be GA-delisted? It seems reasonably clear that the consensus is ''"while there were no "problems with the first review - it seems fine," because a challenge was raised it should be de-listed and re-reviewed for reasons of due diligence. This opinion was expressed by SilkTork and agreed by Prhartcom, LavaBaron (the first reviewer), and CorporateM (the nominator). Three other editors, though disagreeing with the rationale for delisting, supported the delisting itself."'' Could an uninvolved editor assess this for close? ] (]) 16:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
:I would urge the uninvolved editor to assess carefully, since LavaBaron is proposing the closure wording he wants, and there have indeed been people who have found significant problems with the original review and its swiftness and lack of depth, as witness the sheer number of issues raised in the GAR, which was begun right after the original GA review concluded. (The original review was opened and completed on LavaBaron's first day of GA reviewing.) Some of the opinions of people mentioned above have even changed. Thank you for your time. ] (]) 17:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
::Correct, as I noted ''Three other editors, though disagreeing with the rationale for delisting, supported the delisting itself.'' While the strong consensus of editors indicated there were no problems with the review, you and another editor expressed your belief (in colorful ways like "you are unqualified" and " blind") there were problems and I have no problem acknowledging that minority during closure (though would suggest we avoid using abusive characterizations of other editors (such as " blind") in a closing rationale). Also, for clarification, I did not provide "closure wording," I provided an accurate summary of the situation. The closing editor is always free to use any wording he fancies. As someone who does a lot of closures myself, I know an accurate summary of the situation is always appreciated. Best - ] (]) 18:17, 5 August 2015 (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)
Would an uninvolved editor please assess ]? Thanks. {{Initiated|4 July 2015}}? ]&nbsp;]] 14:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


===]===
====]====
{{initiated|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. ---<span style="font-family: Calibri">]<small> (]&#124;]) </small></span> 17:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:<small>Procedural request; thread originally appeared . '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 01:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)</small>
Could we get a review and close over at ] on the discussion of Roosh V by an uninvolved admin? It's been open for over a week, and discussion of the topic has been dead for a few days. --] (]) 16:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
* {{Done}} – note that I didn't post a decision upon closure at the BLPN section, just referred to a more recent related listing at another noticeboard, which normally could lead to a conclusion of the discussion. Please check whether I handled this correctly. --] (]) 09:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
* {{Not Done}} - The discussion at RSN is unrelated to the discussion at BLPN. The discussion at RSN is about CJAD radio and content added from that source, the discussion on BLPN is about using the Anti Defamation League as a source on itself with regards to content on a BLP. Please either re-open the BLPN discussion or provide a proper closure for the BLPN discussion. --] (]) 17:02, 7 August 2015 (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)
Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at ]? Thanks, ]]]1 11:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC) {{Initiated|5 July 2015}}


=== Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading ===
====]====
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}
We need a close. People keep reverting all attempts to do so. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Latest revision as of 15:26, 29 December 2024

"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 and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

    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 16 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 14 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 82 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 62 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)

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

    (Initiated 53 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:Requests_for_comment/Grey_Literature

    (Initiated 49 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)

    Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 461#RfC: Check Your Fact

    (Initiated 45 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)

    Now archived. An uninvolved closer is still requested. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    (Initiated 39 days ago on 20 November 2024) TompaDompa (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    Talk:Israel#RfC

    (Initiated 36 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 31 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 30 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)

    Talk:Elon Musk#RfC: Mentioning Oligarch Characterization in Lead

    (Initiated 3 days ago on 26 December 2024) Support vs Oppose is currently 7 to 14, consensus seems to have been reached and the discussion is heading towards dead-horse-beating territory. Big Thumpus (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Deletion discussions

    XFD backlog
    V Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
    CfD 0 0 0 22 22
    TfD 0 0 0 4 4
    MfD 0 0 0 1 1
    FfD 0 0 1 2 3
    RfD 0 0 2 32 34
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0

    Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 17#List of Neverwinter Nights characters

    (Initiated 60 days ago on 30 October 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    (Initiated 31 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 26 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 24 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)

    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 95 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 74 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 72 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 61 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 53 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 34 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)

    Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

    (Initiated 32 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: