| Revision as of 23:11, 10 July 2013 editTryptofish (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers69,478 edits I'm not sure: does the sentence fit better here?← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:28, 11 July 2013 edit undoNathan Johnson (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers12,381 edits Reverted 2 edits by Tryptofish (talk): WP:BRD; take it to talk please. (TW)Next edit → | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
| Note: special considerations apply for ] and ] - see ] and ] for details. | Note: special considerations apply for ] and ] - see ] and ] for details. | ||
| 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. If there is disagreement with a particular closure, you can start a new discussion at the original page, ], or ] with a link to the discussion page and the policy-based reason you believe the closure should be overturned |
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. If there is disagreement with a particular closure, you can start a new discussion at the original page, ], or ] with a link to the discussion page and the policy-based reason you believe the closure should be overturned. | ||
| <center>'''Please post new requests at the ''end'' of the appropriate section(s).'''</center> | <center>'''Please post new requests at the ''end'' of the appropriate section(s).'''</center> | ||
Revision as of 02:28, 11 July 2013
| 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 | |
The Requests for closure noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Misplaced Pages.
Please note that most discussions do not need formal closure. Where consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion, provided the discussion has been open long enough for a consensus to form. The default length of an RfC is 30 days; where consensus becomes clear before that and discussion is not ongoing, the discussion can be closed earlier, although it should not be closed sooner than one week except in the case of WP:SNOW.
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.
Note: special considerations apply for articles for deletion and move discussions - see Misplaced Pages:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions and Misplaced Pages:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions for details.
A request for comment 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. If there is disagreement with a particular closure, you can start a new discussion at the original page, WP:Village Pump, or Administrators' noticeboard with a link to the discussion page and the policy-based reason you believe the closure should be overturned.
Requests for closure
See also: Misplaced Pages:Requested movesTalk:Wii U#RfC:_Is_it_appropriate_to_cite_criticism_of_the_Wii_U.27s_hardware_and_its_.22eight-generation.22_status_in_the_first_paragraph_of_its_lead.3F
From the !votes, nine or so are opposed to including the comment in the lead, one (User:mazty) is vocally supporting (but it appears from their comments that they just hate Nintendo as they state their derogatory opinions as facts without reliable sources...), and one who supports more ambiguously and one neutral. This seems to be a WP:SNOW case as most almost everyone agrees that the putting "(although some industry figures have disputed its exact classification)" in regards to the Wii U's generation status in the lead is putting undue weight on a minority view that better belongs in the reception section. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Please note the users emotive insults. Sources were referenced and presumptions made on all sides of the debate - user was warned in thread for his aggressive tone before. Mazty (talk) 00:00 3 July 2013 (GMT+2)
- Mazty unfortunately is lying here. Other than saying they were lying, I never directly insulted them. They have stated multiple claims denigrating the Wii/WiiU within said discussion (such as saying the original Wii was weaker than the original Xbox) without actually citing reliable sources. That said regardless Mazty's conduct or statements, there is a clear snowball consensus that the statement "(although some industry figures have disputed its exact classification)" puts undue weight on a minority opinion. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Please only use this space to request a close, and not as an extension or a meta-analysis of the RfC. I'll take care of this one and close within the next few hours. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 04:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Done. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 06:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for permissions#Use of account creator
Could an uninvolved admin please take a look at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for permissions#Use of account creator and close the discussion. Which ever way this is closed (except no consensus obviously) a change/clarification will need to be made at WP:Account creator, Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Account creator, and (if it's closed that way) removal of account creator rights from some people. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Closed discussion. I'd appreciate it if someone else did the other parts. Thanks. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:RJL#UK-specific deviations
CLOSED, AND SO IS THIS ANRFC is for requesting closes and pretty much nothing else. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Requesting an uninvolved admin to close the above. It was not an official RFC but more or less a straw poll to gauge consensus, though I am not sure that it ultimately has done so. However, it should be closed so we can see where it falls off. --Rschen7754 23:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Please undo and close with "No consensus" which I believe to be an accurate description. Martinvl (talk) 06:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Please also take note that this request came rather soon after this thread and this thread, both of which were on the verge of getting nasty. I for one backed away and did not make my opinion known. I now make it known - I oppose them. Martinvl (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Seriously, please just drop the WP:STICK. --Rschen7754 10:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Seriously, please admit that there was no consensus. Martinvl (talk) 10:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Seriously, please just drop the WP:STICK. --Rschen7754 10:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just glancing at the discussion, I think I would have closed it the same way as Nathan. Can you say more about why you see no consensus? SlimVirgin 16:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- I knew there was something fishy about a request to close something that seemed so one-sided. Anyway, AN is the place to request review of such. Well, after asking politely on the closer's user talk page, but that ship has sailed. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- May I make another request that this version (12 June 2013) be instated as the last stable version of the page. If you look at the section "M5 Motorway", you will see that the road junction list is identical to the version propsed by User:Rschen7754 three years ago here. Rschen7754's version of 2010 has been accepted, yet it was Rschen7754 who initiated the closure on the debate which triggerd the lock. Martinvl (talk) 05:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Which is a complete red herring. The current version reflects the current consensus, and that is what should remain. --Rschen7754 05:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Please let an uninvolved administrator make that decision. Martinvl (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Please use {{edit protected}} on the article talk page. Though it will almost certainly be rejected without first obtaining consensus on the talk page. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Please let an uninvolved administrator make that decision. Martinvl (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Which is a complete red herring. The current version reflects the current consensus, and that is what should remain. --Rschen7754 05:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- May I make another request that this version (12 June 2013) be instated as the last stable version of the page. If you look at the section "M5 Motorway", you will see that the road junction list is identical to the version propsed by User:Rschen7754 three years ago here. Rschen7754's version of 2010 has been accepted, yet it was Rschen7754 who initiated the closure on the debate which triggerd the lock. Martinvl (talk) 05:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Gun_control#RFC
Highly controversial article. RFC open for 7 days (as of 6/27), last !vote 6 days ago. Survey !votes results approaching WP:SNOW but several editors without !votes commenting in extensive threaded discussion. Threaded discussion is primarily previously involved editors rehashing same debates, but a few people notified by RFC discussing as well. Survey !votes have a lot of new voices. At least one "opposing" editor explicitly abstaining from RFC, a few others with discussion but no !vote. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Not done. Please see/read the paragraph above starting "Please note that most discussions do not need formal closure." -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- @Nathan Johnson This article has been subject to highly contentious editing, edit warring, etc. There are active "threats" in the discussion to nominate the article for deletion immediately, and accusations of violations of policy all over the place. I am coming here for closure to keep everything as above board as possible so that there are no accusations of impropriety or manipulation of the RFC closure analysis (particularly as I am the creator of the RFC, and one of the more active prior-involved editors) Gaijin42 (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Closed as no consensus with a suggestion to reopen the RfC. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have reopened it per your suggestion. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Closed as no consensus with a suggestion to reopen the RfC. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- @Nathan Johnson This article has been subject to highly contentious editing, edit warring, etc. There are active "threats" in the discussion to nominate the article for deletion immediately, and accusations of violations of policy all over the place. I am coming here for closure to keep everything as above board as possible so that there are no accusations of impropriety or manipulation of the RFC closure analysis (particularly as I am the creator of the RFC, and one of the more active prior-involved editors) Gaijin42 (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Ugg boots trademark disputes#Request for comment about counterfeiting
A long and at times contentious RFC that needs an uninvolved admin to close. Due to several problems, the first RFC (open for 40 days) was closed with no consensus by User:Dpmuk who also moderated this RFC. This second RFC has been open for 58 days with the last vote lodged 46 days ago and formal discussion ending 42 days ago. User:Dpmuk posted on 11 June that he would be away for a few days but would close within a week if another admin had not already done so, that was 18 days ago. User:Dpmuk suggested posting here at WP:AN/RFC if the RFC remained open too long. Wayne (talk) 06:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Talk:The_Dark_Knight_(film)#Requested_move_no._2
Requesting an uninvolved party to evaluate for consensus and close an involved and heated discussion that lasted over a week, is at a clear standstill, and has very low involvement now. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Consensus was unclear, so I {{relisted}} it. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Can you provide more reasoning as to why you relisted it? Even if you don't believe consensus clear (which is debatable, given the vivid discussion and the !votes), I'm unclear as to why a no-consensus closure wouldn't be more appropriate. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- To provide more time for uninvolved users to comment in the hopes of reaching a consensus. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I wish I were convinced that were possible, but most of the editors involved are clearly not going to budge, all of the same points are being rehashed over and over, and new participants are simply lining up to agree with arguments already made. I hardly see how providing more time for discussion is going to change anything at this point. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- To provide more time for uninvolved users to comment in the hopes of reaching a consensus. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Can you provide more reasoning as to why you relisted it? Even if you don't believe consensus clear (which is debatable, given the vivid discussion and the !votes), I'm unclear as to why a no-consensus closure wouldn't be more appropriate. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Further discussion is not necessary. Sixteen editors have participated, all the arguments have been put forward and now the discussion is going around in circles. It is highly doubtful more editors will bring fresh viewpoints to the discussion. The whole debate would be best served by an admin sifting through what is an extensive and largely repetitive discussion and determining which arguments—if any—are most consistent with the naming guidelines. Betty Logan (talk) 02:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin, but there seems to be a rush to get this to WP:MR, so closed. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Note that I have brought this to move review. Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Deadmaus#Requested_Move_4:_Hopefully_the_last_RM
Discussion has been ongoing for seven days and it is clear per the consensus that a move is needed so it is impossible for a non-admin to close it. PantherLeapord (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Closed by Cuchullain (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust 09:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion
There is a backlog of discussions going back to mid May. I have participated in most of the oldest remaining discussions so I cannot close them myself. Thryduulf (talk) 10:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Talk:PSR B1919+21#Merge
- Moved from incorrect posting at WT:AN. — Scott • talk 18:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Can someone close an old merge poll at talk:PSR B1919+21? LGM-1 was merged into the article in 2013 February by Wtshymanski. However, he didn't close the merge poll or migrate the project banners. I tried to note the merger with {{mergedfrom}} and close the merge discussion with {{discussion-top}}/{{discussion-bottom}} on the talk page, and migrate the project banners from LGM-1 to PSR B1919+21, but keep getting reverted. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've undone their reversion of your close. Seems like a good close to me - conversation is stale and the merge has happened so I can't see any reason to oppose this bit of house keeping. The fact that an IP editor did it makes no difference and they shouldn't be reverting for that reason (which appears to be the case from the edit log). Dpmuk (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Martin Guevara Urbina
Nomination is more than a month old, but seems to have been left out of the daily logs when it was relisted, and either needs closing or relisting (and inclusion in the dailies this time). I can't do it myself because I !voted in it. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by Salvidrim! (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust 09:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists#RfC: Ratification of recent changes to remove UK-specific formatting provisions
This RfC was scheduled to run for a period of 10 days as a follow-up to a previous discussion. That time has elapsed, so could an administrator please close the discussion? Imzadi 1979 → 23:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion
We would appreciate the help of a previously uninvolved admin to close a discussion about three proposed edits here. That section contains links to previous installments of the discussion that are currently archived. The discussion was going very actively throughout the month of April but was put on hold by a moderator who wanted to focus on a different section of the article. When that section was improved, we started to discuss these three edits again in June, but the moderator again redirected our efforts into a different section. Both of those other sections are now substantially improved, the moderator has withdrawn, and it's time to finally resolve these three proposed edits.
Also, we'd appreciate a volunteer admin to serve as our new moderator. kind regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 June 30#Template:Canada Squad 2007 FIFA U-20 World Cup
It would be great if another admin could close/relist this one. I have been closing all the football squad discussions recently, and it would be great to have someone else help out. If the result is delete/keep, I have a bot that can take care if removing the transclusions or removing the tfd tags. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ 05:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Cooperative_State_Research,_Education,_and_Extension_Service
Request for closure and evaluation of consensus on merge discussion: Could an uninvolved admin please take a look at Talk:Cooperative_State_Research,_Education,_and_Extension_Service. I believe an appropriate amount of time has elapsed. Discussion has been open since May 15, 2013 and last comment was made June 24, 2013. Thank you for your help! Amnorris2 (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Request to close an expired RfC at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (use English)
Can an univolved administrator please close this expired RfC Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (use English)#RfC: Is "Madrid" a good example of "Naming conventions (use English)" ?. Since the bot removed the template there have been no comments from editorshas been one comment from one editor who had not previously commented during the RfC. -- PBS (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)