| Revision as of 22:16, 11 September 2017 editRedrose64 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators272,729 edits →Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas#RfC: Nationality/citizenship: this is how you show that a request has been actioned: the |done=yes deactivates it, and the {{done}} summons ClueBot III← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:09, 12 September 2017 edit undoClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,372,041 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 24. (BOT)Next edit → | ||
| Line 100: | Line 100: | ||
| ====]==== | ====]==== | ||
| Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|6 August 2017}}? Thanks, ] (]) 00:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC) | Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|6 August 2017}}? Thanks, ] (]) 00:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC) | ||
| ====]==== | |||
| Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|3 August 2017|done=yes|nac=yes}}? Thanks, ] (]) 00:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :{{done}} by {{user|SMcCandlish}} --] 🌹 (]) 22:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ====]==== | ====]==== | ||
Revision as of 05:09, 12 September 2017
 | This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared. |
| 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. 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, such as when the discussion is about creating, abolishing or changing a policy or guideline.
Many discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed here.
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 request for comment is 30 days (opened on or before 25 November 2024); 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 very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion.
If consensus is unclear, then post a neutral request here for assistance.
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 Closure review at Administrators' noticeboard with a link to the discussion page and the policy-based reason you believe the closure should be overturned. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive for previous closure reviews.
Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.
Because requests for closure made here are often those that are the most contentious, closing these discussions can be a significant responsibility. Closers should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion. All closers should be prepared to fully discuss the closure rationale with any editors who have questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that those editors may have.
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. However, 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.
Once a discussion listed on this page has been closed, please add {{Close}} or {{Done}} and a note to the request here, after which the request will be archived.
Requests for closure
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, and Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion § Old businessAdministrative discussions
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Willfull and persistent disruption of Draft space by TakuyaMurata
This has long since ceased to be productive. Due to the contentious nature of the discussion, I request that three uninvolved admins publish a joint closing statement. I have been involved, but at this point, I no longer have an opinion on the outcome. I just want to see closure so we can all move on. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- @RoySmith: I would also like to see closure for this discussion, but may have been slightly involved. A question: by three, do you include yourself? Regards, Alex Shih 04:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- No, I should not be one of the three. My prior involvement with this debate disqualifies me. But, I will take this opportunity to ping all the other admins reading this and ask them to consider stepping up. The debate is still simmering. It's not really even a debate any more, it's just the three main players continuing to snipe at each other. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- @RoySmith: I would also like to see closure for this discussion, but may have been slightly involved. A question: by three, do you include yourself? Regards, Alex Shih 04:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- I predict no Administrator will close this and instead will roll off the page unless the enablers of the disruptive action continue to make patently false objections and arguments/proposals that would require jettisoning a great swath of current operating procedure. In short I look forward to an uninvolved user to start Arbitration proceedings or people let this roll off into archives so that it can be pointed at in 6 months as justification for AN not being able to resolve this issue. Hasteur (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- I appear to have a very similar problem to this editor which has been going on even longer and would have been easily rectified by viewing provided diffs, new evidence, and new WP policy of AUG2017 today in DRV. In fact, User:RoySmith purposefully ignored my concerns closing the request and each policy mentioned would have been highly relevant to this discussion now. (in fairness to Roy I'm new to this process and it was sort of disorganized). I wish he could have understood the similarities in my case with this one. My drafts were in already in user space and there was no suggestion what-so-ever to compromise with the draft disrupting editor who nominated my draft as stale only 1.5 hours after my last edit. Johnvr4 (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- User:Johnvr4 your issue has nothing to do with the Taku problem and is nothing like it. I don't think we need a close now. All the abandoned drafts have been run through G13 and refunded (or the CSD tag removed) or have been theough MfD. The admin guidelines on CSD G13 are pretty clear that the second refund is questionable amd the third request unlikely to be granted. I don't expect there wil be much effort on these pages so will G13 them in 6 months. Legacypac (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line
RfCs
Misplaced Pages talk:Citing sources#RfC: Should usage of vertical and horizontal templates fall within WP:CITEVAR
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Citing sources#RfC: Should usage of vertical and horizontal templates fall within WP:CITEVAR (Initiated 2736 days ago on 29 June 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Working Talk:Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries#Split section on Iran
A long overdue discussion on a sensitive topic, which should be closed by a neutral party. Thanks.GreyShark (dibra) 11:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Jared Taylor#RfC labeling in lede
Would an experienced editor determine the consensus at this RfC? (Initiated 2689 days ago on 15 August 2017) THE DIAZ 05:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Ned Kelly#RfC about adding photo's in the armour section
(Initiated 2707 days ago on 28 July 2017) Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Ned Kelly#RfC about adding photo's in the armour section Thank you David.moreno72 12:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Cold War II#Name of section about Russia and its rival(s)
An uninvolved editor should close this discussion please. Thanks. (Initiated 2704 days ago on 31 July 2017) George Ho (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Arabs#Proposal
Would an uninvolved administrator please assess and close this discussion? It has been going on for months and was apparently marred by some canvassing . The discussion has also hit a standstill, and an administrator has just indicated that there is no clear denouement . Thanks. (Initiated 2904 days ago on 12 January 2017) Soupforone (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Westworld (TV series)#RfC on Potential Spoilers
Would an uninvolved administrator please close this discussion, (Initiated 2684 days ago on 19 August 2017)? It is obvious that there will be no clear outcome. The issue in question concerns the interpretation of Misplaced Pages guidelines and if no clear answer is given soon, the content dispute will perpetuate. Thank you. -- Radiphus 02:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Template talk:Donald Trump series#RfC: Selection and display of articles about Russia
(Initiated 2701 days ago on 3 August 2017) Would an uninvolved editor kindly assess consensus and close the discussion? — JFG 17:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Singers genres in lead sentence
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Singers genres in lead sentence (Initiated 2737 days ago on 28 June 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 111#RfC: Proposal for WP:NFOOTY guideline
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 111#RfC: Proposal for WP:NFOOTY guideline (Initiated 2698 days ago on 6 August 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Lindy West#RFC on the inclusion of Women's Media Center Award on Lindy West page
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Lindy West#RFC on the inclusion of Women's Media Center Award on Lindy West page (Initiated 2701 days ago on 3 August 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Google's Ideological Echo Chamber#RfC about including "Sources cited in the memo" on this page
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Google's Ideological Echo Chamber#RfC about including "Sources cited in the memo" on this page (Initiated 2695 days ago on 9 August 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Battle of Mosul (2016–17)#RfC Battle of Mosul end date
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Battle of Mosul (2016–17)#RfC Battle of Mosul end date (Initiated 2711 days ago on 24 July 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Trump campaign–Russian meeting#RfC: Should the article include material about the Senate Judiciary Committee investigation of Fusion GPS cofounder Glenn Simpson?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Trump campaign–Russian meeting#RfC: Should the article include material about the Senate Judiciary Committee investigation of Fusion GPS cofounder Glenn Simpson? (Initiated 2703 days ago on 1 August 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Talk:0.999.../Archive 19#Request for comment: Which version neutrally summarizes the cited sources with appropriate weight?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:0.999.../Archive 19#Request for comment: Which version neutrally summarizes the cited sources with appropriate weight? (Initiated 2714 days ago on 21 July 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Pride (2014 film)#RfC about Historical accuracy section
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pride (2014 film)#RfC about Historical accuracy section (Initiated 2695 days ago on 9 August 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Page mover#RfC: Labeling page mover closures
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Page mover#RfC: Labeling page mover closures (Initiated 2718 days ago on 17 July 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/Archive 141#RFC regarding the current DYK Rule 3A "interesting to a Broad audience"
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/Archive 141#RFC regarding the current DYK Rule 3A "interesting to a Broad audience" (Initiated 2694 days ago on 10 August 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Talk:State atheism#RfC: What to do with this article?
(Initiated 2663 days ago on 9 September 2017) Second trainwreck of a pseudo-RfC back-to-back on the same day and page by same author. Does not ask a clear question, consists of one-sided PoV pushing (in a WP:NOT#ADVOCACY / WP:TRUTH / WP:GREATWRONGS vein). This should be shut down like the last one. If there's an issue to RfC here, it should be posed by a neutral third party who's actually read WP:RFC. (Initiated 2666 days ago on 7 September 2017) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼ 22:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- First trainwreck, I think. I already nullified the second one, which was subsequently removed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm the author of the first trainwreck. My intention was to open a policy-inquiry-commentary (not any POV - I had a hard time deciding which policy to forward for the RfC, thus my citing them all, which may come across as that), but it became a content-dispute. There are problems with that article, so if you're going to close the RfC, please preserve its discussion if you can. Thank you. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 15:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line
Deletion discussions
Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 4#Category:Persecution by Muslims
Here are four deletion discussions on a row, open for more than two months now. (Initiated 2731 days ago on 4 July 2017) - Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line
Other types of closing requests
Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 9#Dan Goodin wrote... UNDUE discussion/survey close request
(Initiated 2787 days ago on 8 May 2017) A long discussion has accompanied a slow-motion revert war over the inclusion of a journalist's cited views, which may be UNDUE. The talk thread is at Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 9#Dan Goodin wrote... UNDUE and resumed here Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 11#Goodin redux. Could an Admin please review and close these discussions so as to settle whether there is consensus to include the comments of Mr. Goodin in the article? Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 00:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 227#Review of a decision to remove an external link per ELNEVER
Where do we stand on accepting or rejecting bach-cantatas.com as a source for Misplaced Pages content? (Initiated 2755 days ago on 9 June 2017). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Bias re: Linda Sarsour
WP:FORUMSHOP – started less than 24 hours after opening discussion on article talk page. User who started discussion has not shown good-faith effort to build consensus on the article talk page (Talk:Linda Sarsour#Criticism section), or to understand the relevant parts of WP:BLP. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Move review/Log/2017 August
An uninvolved editor should close a couple ongoing discussions please. Thanks. (Initiated 2699 days ago on 5 August 2017) --George Ho (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Move review/Log/2017 August has been dormant for more than one week. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Alt-left#Merge proposal discussion
(Initiated 2680 days ago on 24 August 2017) A recent deletion nomination for the article Alt-left was closed as no consensus. During the discussions a consensus of editors was formed to begin a merge discussion if the AFD concluded as "No consensus", which it did. Because of the controversial nature of both the article and the dispute, a request is being made for an admin to close this discussion when the duration of the proposal has ended. The rationale of the proposal is strictly the formed consensus and is why the question is left as a simple question to merge or not (there is no policy or guideline to adhere to that requires a fuller, or more detailed rationale). There is no 30 day discussion period required and may be closed when a consensus has been reached.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 66#The use of the term "illegal alien"
An article is currently under full protection due to the edit war that spawned this discussion. I suspect it would be helpful to give this some official closure. Many thanks. Samsara 12:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Talk page guidelines#Guidance against interleaving replies
Guideline change proposal that has gone nowhere but an ever-growing morass of argument about side topics, and circular ones about the original topic. There's clearly no consensus, nor could one conceivably emerge from this, so it should just be closed as unproductive (I would NAC close it myself, but commented in it). (Initiated 2690 days ago on 14 August 2017) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼ 08:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Category: