Misplaced Pages:Closure requests: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 03:33, 9 February 2017 editNikkimaria (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users231,831 edits →Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Election summary in the lede: +1← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 23:10, 30 December 2024 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators58,168 edits →Deletion discussions: +2
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 = 22		\|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~~\|WP:~~RfCl~~}}		{{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 ==
			'''Any ] may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.'''
	<includeonly>:''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 appropriate section! If none of the sections apply, you may need to add one, since the section heading may have been deleted or hidden. 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: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!-->
			{{cob}}
			'''If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here'''. Instead follow advice at ].

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

			== Other areas tracking old discussions ==
	====]====
			* ]
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|2 January 2017}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]

			== Administrative discussions ==
	====]====
			<!--
	Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|30 December 2016}} <small>(using the date from ] due to the close relationship between the two discussions)</small>? Thanks, <small>— ]<sup> (]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">])</sub></small> 21:28, 6 February 2017 (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
	===RfCs===
	====]====
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|29 October 2016\|done=yes\|nac=yes}}? Thanks, ] (]) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
	:{{done\|reason=Preferences were in favor of a Green-Blue-Red, open-dashed-closed shackle, dotted-half full-full lock image <small>(])</small> ] ] ] 22:43, 8 February 2017 (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. *
	====]====
			Place new administrative discussions below this line using a level 3 heading -->
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|29 October 2016}}? Thanks, ] (]) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

			=== ]===
	====]====
			{{initiated\|17:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)}} challenge of close at AN was archived ''']''' - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	The discussion may need evaluation. --] (]) 00:59, 19 December 2016 (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 ==
	====]====
			<!--
	Could an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus of this RfC? {{Initiated\|27 November 2016}} ] (]) 20:16, 30 December 2016 (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\|3 December 2016}}? Thanks, ] (]) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (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. *
	==== ] ====
			-->
	Can an experienced user assess the consensus in this discussion? --] <sup>]</sup> 19:25, 26 December 2016 (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 asses the consensus opinion on ] {{Initiated\|December 22, 2016}}. It initially started out with voting and then escalated to a lot of people going back and forth and it is a little difficult to gage what the full consensus opinion. ] (]) 19:56, 9 January 2017 (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 experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|9 December 2016}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
			:{{a note}} This is a ] and subject to ]. - ] (]) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''] ''''']''''' , ] ] <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\|13 December 2016}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

			===]===
	====]====
			{{Initiated\|03:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)}}
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|14 December 2016}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (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;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 13:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|16 December 2016}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
			::{{yo\|Compassionate727}} Still working on this? — ] <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;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 22:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Taking a pause is fair. Just wanted to double check. — ] <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)
			:{{doing}} ] (]) 22:36, 29 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)">] <sub>]</sub></span> 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|14 December 2016}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

			:Now ]. An uninvolved closer is still requested. — ] <sub>]</sub> 21:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	====]====
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|15 December 2016}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

			=== ] ===
	====]====
			{{initiated\|10:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)}} ] (]) 19:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|11 December 2016}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

			=== ] ===
	====]====
			{{initiated\|16:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)}} ] (]) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|12 December 2016}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (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)
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] {{Initiated\|4 December 2016}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (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\|18 December 2016}}? Listing after on my talk page. Thanks, ] (]) 07:42, 18 January 2017 (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 some kind soul gently assess consensus and answer the question asked? {{Initiated\|23 December 2016\|done=yes}} — ] <sup>]</sup> 20:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
	* {{DONE}} ] (]) 13:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

			=== ] ===
	====]====
	~~Would~~ an ~~experienced~~ ~~editor~~ ~~assess~~ ~~the~~ consensus? ~~{{Initiated\|13~~ ~~January~~ ~~2017}}~~ --] (]) 17:05, 26 ~~January~~ ~~2017~~ (UTC)		{{initiated\|08:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)\|done=yes}} 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)
	:Discussion now archived at ]. --] (]) 17:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

			:give it more time. Usually need longer than just 4 days since RFC start, unless it is clearly overwhelming support (see ]). ] (]) 19:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	====]====
			:Not a good idea to close this yet by the sounds of it, based on ]. ] (]) 19:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	{{Initiated\|10:18, 18 December 2016\|done=yes\|nac=yes}}
			:{{not done}} per above. ''''']''''' , ] ] <small>21:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
	Could an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus and close this RfC. Best ''''']''''' (]) 10:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
	*done ] (]) 08:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
	*Sorry but it was not done. I asked for the consensus to be assessed. So please could an uninvolved editor close this properly. Many thanks. ''''']''''' (]) 09:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
	::{{done\| reason= non-involved editor closing as '''no consensus''' to overturn previous discussions}} <small>(])</small> ] ] ] 22:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

	====]====		=== ] ===
			{{Initiated\|16:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)}}
	Discussion on splitting ] - initiated in 2014 with last comments added in early 2016. In my opinion there is a consensus to split, but since i initiated the discussion - i would like an external objective closure of the RfC.] (]) 06:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
			Clear consensus that the proposed edit (and its amended version) violate ]. However, the owning editor is engaging in ] behavior, repeatedly arguing against the consensus and dismissing others' rationale as not fitting his personal definition of synthesis; and is persistently assuming bad-faith, including . When finally challenged to give a direct quote from the source that supports the proposed edit, it was dismissed with "" and then The discussion is being driven into a ground by an editor who does not (nor wish to) understand consensus and can't be ] with any opposing argument supported by Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines. --] (]) 22:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

			=== Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading ===
	====]====
			{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|2147483647}}
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|18 December 2016}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (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}}
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|27 December 2016}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
			=== ] ===
			{{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)
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|28 December 2016}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

			=== ] ===
	====]====
			{{initiated\|17:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)\|type=xfd}} ] ] 20:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|22 December 2016}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (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)
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|28 December 2016}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

			=== ] ===
	====]====
			{{initiated\|type=cfd\|20 December 2024}} <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] {{Initiated\|28 December 2016}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

			=== ] ===
	====]====
			{{initiated\|type=cfd\|20 December 2024}} <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|29 December 2016\|done=yes}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
	* {{DONE}} ] (]) 17:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

			=== Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading ===
	====]====
			{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|2147483647}}
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|22 December 2016}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

			== Other types of closing requests ==
	====]====
			<!--
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|17 December 2016\|done=yes}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
			Please place entries ordered by the date the discussion was initiated (oldest at top).
	* {{DONE}} ] (]) 12:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

			Please ensure you add the {{initiated\|date here}} template when placing a request here.
	====]====
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|20 December 2016}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (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\|22 December 2016\|done=yes}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
	* {{DONE}} ] (]) 22:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|17 December 2016}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] {{Initiated\|}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

	====]====
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated\|30 December 2016}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

	====]====
	The RfC was ended by Legobot after the normal thirty days: consensus on the primary issue had been achieved well before that; but ] upon the scope of the RfC - does the outcome apply only to the ] article. --] 🌹 (]) 15:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
	:Just a note that this discussion has been moved to ]. - ] (]) 23:19, 2 February 2017 (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)
	Needs closure from uninvolved editor. 20:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
	* {{DONE}} ] (]) 03:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

			=== ] ===
	====]====
			{{initiated\|11:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)}} Experienced closer requested. ―] ] 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
	This needs closure from uninvolved editor. --] (]) 05:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
	*There is an existing discussion on this at ] ] (]) 05:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

			===]===
	====]====
	~~Would~~ an ~~uninvolved~~ ~~editor~~ ~~please~~ ~~assess~~ ~~the~~ ~~consensus~~ ~~and~~ ~~close~~ ~~this~~ ~~RfC?~~ ~~Thanks in advance,~~ ] (]) 02:26, 7 ~~February~~ ~~2017~~ (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;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 14:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
	====] ====
	Opened on 6 Jan 2017. Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus and close this RfC? Thanks! --] <small>] • (])</small> 03:27, 7 February 2017 (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)
	Would an uninvolved and experienced editor assess the consensus ? Thanks, --] (]) 23:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

	==== ] ====
	There is some disagreement over the way forward, and as I have been involved it would help to have an uninvolved editor or admin assess consensus and agree closure. ] (]) 17:14, 7 February 2017 (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)
	Experienced and uninvolved close requested. Thanks. {{Initiated\|8 January 2017}} ―] ] 22:58, 8 February 2017 (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> (]\|]) </small></span> 17:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	Needs closure from uninvolved editor. {{Initiated\|4 January 2017}}. 03:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

			===]===
	=== Deletion discussions ===
			{{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)
	==== ] ====
	<strike>The backlog has been growing again, currently some 150 open discussions, the oldest is almost two months old. ] (]) 07:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)</strike>
	* The backlog has now decreassed to just over 100 open discussions, thanks to ]'s recent efforts. Regardless of this, it's pretty important that '''more admins''' should '''regularly''' close discussions here. Without further admin involvement, we'll be back at 150 in two weeks. ] (]) 21:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
	**I agree with ]. There is a longstanding need for more admins to undertake this task regularly, and it now seems to be getting critical. {{u\|BU Rob13}} became an admin about a year and did great work closing many discussions, but has now stepped down as an admin, leaving a big gap. Rob's contribution was v welcome, but Marcocapelle is right that we need multiple more admins to help out.<br />I have been thinking about how to persuade admins more to help, and my best idea so far is to routinely add CFD-close questions to ] candidates. They are already closely questioned on AFD closures, which ensures that new admins are usually up-to-speed on that. It seems to me that doing the same thing for CFD would encourage more new admins to learn CFD before putting themselves forward, and also maybe tempt some existing admins to join in.<br />Any thoughts on that idea? --] <small>] • (])</small> 22:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
	***{{re\|BrownHairedGirl}} I doubt that would convince candidates to jump in ''or'' convince experienced admins to try their hand at CfD. Instead, it's likely to cause more people to fail RfA ("You don't know ]? Clearly needs more polish!" despite not wanting to work in CFD). Personally, I see the way forward as a combination of promoting from within (Marcocapelle would qualify for admin if he wanted it) and being more consistent in our activity (when we go a week without closing a discussion, it's hard to catch up. If all active closers close two discussions a day, it's easy.) Unfortunately, the paid editing/outing situation has caused me to largely withdraw from admin areas, so I won't be of much help. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 03:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
	****{{re\|BU Rob13}} good points. Will you help me try to persuade {{u\|Marcocapelle}} to accept an RFA nomination? --] <small>] • (])</small> 03:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
	***** :-) ] tried that as well. Most importantly it wouldn't solve the problem because I'm ''already'' closing discussions and we need ''other'' people to join. Second, I would surely not pass the exams to become an admin since I'm only active in categories. ] (]) 07:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
	****** {{u\|Marcocapelle}}, I don't know whether having the tools is useful at CfD, but looking at your contributions history, yes, you'd probably struggle to pass at RfA at this time. But that could be helped by you creating a handful of decent articles. Once done, you could check things out via ]. You may be closer to it than you think. If that could be of interest to you, let's take this discussion to your talk page. '''<font color="#000000">]</font><font color="#FF4500">]</font>''' 08:53, 7 February 2017 (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)
	Is an uninvolved administrator willing to close ]? The discussion has become ''extremely'' lengthy already, in just a single week, and will only get lengthier when not closed, while afaics no new arguments are being added. I can't close it myself because I have contributed to the discussion. ] (]) 18:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

			=== Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading ===
	==== ] ====
			{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|2147483647}}
	Please disposition ], which has been relisted 3 times, and has been open for more than one month. --] (]) 00:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
	*{{DONE}} &spades;]&spades; ] 02:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:10, 30 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.

v t e 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	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
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

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}}`.

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 17 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 15 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 84 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 63 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. 22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 54 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 50 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)

Doing... Aaron Liu (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 47 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)

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

(Initiated 45 days ago on 15 November 2024) Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 40 days ago on 20 November 2024) TompaDompa (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 38 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)

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 32 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 31 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 4 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)

give it more time. Usually need longer than just 4 days since RFC start, unless it is clearly overwhelming support (see WP:SNOW). Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Not a good idea to close this yet by the sounds of it, based on WP:UPHILLBATTLE. CNC (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Not done per above. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. 21:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Team Seas#Re: the ocean pollution additions

(Initiated 45 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)

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

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
V	Nov	Dec	Total
CfD	0	12	12
TfD	0	0	0
MfD	0	1	1
FfD	1	1	2
RfD	0	25	25
AfD	0	0	0

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

(Initiated 33 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 28 days ago on 2 December 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_December_13#Category:People_by_criminal_charge

(Initiated 27 days ago on 3 December 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 25 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:Misplaced Pages oversighters

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

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

(Initiated 10 days ago on 20 December 2024) House Blaster (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 96 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 75 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 73 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 62 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 55 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 35 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 33 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 24 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: