Misplaced Pages:Closure requests: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 09:06, 12 May 2012 editSandstein (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,259 editsm →Talk:Big Bang#RfC: Which draft should be selected?← Previous edit		Revision as of 09:28, 12 May 2012 edit undoJeh (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,611 edits Undid revision 492109767 by Armbrust (talk) I really don't think you're allowed to do that here unless you're an adminNext edit →
Line 68:		Line 68:

	In my opinion there are consensus among uninvolved admins on some kind of short term sanction either block for a week or one one month topic ban.--] (]) 16:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)		In my opinion there are consensus among uninvolved admins on some kind of short term sanction either block for a week or one one month topic ban.--] (]) 16:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

			=== ]===

			Per the header, this RFC should have been deleted about seven days ago. There is really only one "certifier". There appears to be a second, Guy Macon, but in the "Views" section he states "I am not involved in the current dispute", which means he shouldn't have made himself a certifier. ] (]) 03:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

			:'''Oppose'''. Jeh posted the above closure request without giving me time to reply to his concerns (Three minutes between bringing his concerns up at the RfV/U and posting this closure request). I was not involved in the specific incident leading up to this RfC/U, but I ''have'' attempted to resolve the specific incident (which I was not involved in prior to my attempts to resolve it). Specifically, I once again urged Wtshymanski on his talk page to discuss his behavior and attempt to come to an agreement on what is and is not acceptable. My comments were deleted without response, thus I believe that I have tried and failed to resolve the specific conflict that triggered this RfC/U.

			:The original poster of this RfC (an inexperienced IP editor, so we should cut him some slack about properly crafting his complaint) complained about a long-running pattern of behavior and a specific incident that highlights the pattern of behavior. I certified that I had previously tried to resolve the long-running pattern of behavior and that I have now tried to resolve the specific incident.

			:] conduct says that the purpose of the RFC/U is to "Allow a number of users to collaborate in discussing wider issues they see with a particular editor's conduct". That is what is happening here. There is a lively discussion going on, and Wtshymanski himself just recently decided to respond - a major breakthrough from someone who regularly deletes any attempts to discuss his behavior. The RfC/U is productive should be allowed to continue. --] (]) 07:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

			::There is now a third certifier. If you want I can ask a dozen editors to try to resolve this same dispute so we can watch them fail. After years and years of pissing everyone off and multiple complaints on multiple noticeboards, Wtshymanski has yet to engage in a meaningful conversation about his behavior. He deletes most attempts at communicating with him -- usually with no comment but occasionally with a sarcastic comment. I can show you many examples if you wish. --] (]) 11:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

			* '''Oppose''' The only reason this isn't a dogpile on W's long-running and unacceptable editing behaviour is that he's so obstinate he has simply outlasted most of those who've encountered him. A moment's searching of the usual suspect boards will show what an utter pain he has been to many people already, not just for this issue. I haven't commented because I really am too busy at present. ] (]) 12:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

	===]===		===]===

Revision as of 09:28, 12 May 2012

Requests for closure

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.

Shortcuts

Archives

1, 2

Misplaced Pages talk:Copyrights#RfC: What to do with respect to the copyright of countries with which the US does not have copyright relations?

This has been open for a couple of months now, partly because of a long wait for a foundation legal opinion, but discussion has pretty much stopped and this needs closing. I started it so am involved and Moonriddengirl was involved in her WMF role so can't close either. I'd hope to be able to find a image copyright admin to talk a look but a post to WP:MCQ has yielded no responses so bringing here. Dpmuk (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Allow watchlisting of Special:Contributions/User pages

Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Allow watchlisting of Special:Contributions/User pages and its sub-proposals? Would an admin also implement the consensus by filing a Bugzilla request? Cunard (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion was archived at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_86#Allow watchlisting of Special:Contributions/User pages. Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 10:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Clouding_of_consciousness#Should_Clouding_of_Consciousness_Be_Merged.3F

RfC on merge, please assist in closing. Thanks. Yobol (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Anti-Pakistan_sentiment#Request_for_comment

Would someone be so kind as to close out this RFC? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:FTN#RfC: Should there be advice to notify an article if discussion is extended or invites action?

Could someone close this RfC? It's rather malformed, being put on the main noticeboard, instead of the talkpage, and seems to have fairly clear consensus. 86.** IP (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion was archived to Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 31#RfC: Should there be advice to notify an article if discussion is extended or invites action?. Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 10:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:Extrinsic_extensor_muscles_of_the_hand#RFC_on_reversion_of_merge

Would an uninvolved admin please close and summarize the RFC at Talk:Extrinsic_extensor_muscles_of_the_hand#RFC_on_reversion_of_merge?--Taylornate (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:2006 Israel–Gaza conflict casualties timeline#Merger

The proposal is standing for a couple of years already.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 March 27#Tai chi

This has been awaiting closure for over a month and it's been about a week and a half since the last comment. I've taken part in the discussion so can't close it myself. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Woody Interruptus#Merger discussion

There are three oppositions and two supports. However, opposition begs chances, while supporters do not want to give chances. --George Ho (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Radical_right#RfC: Should the article mention the Tea Party?

Does not appear to be anywhere near a close result - but would an unilvlved admin kindly close it? 3 appear to consider the Tea Party to be properly mentioned (even if it is not deemed Radical Right) while 11 deem it improperly in the article. Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Done Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 12:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Touré#Consensus discussion

This was an RfC to decide whether there's consensus to add the subject's surname to the article, against his wishes (it was his slave name and he rejects it). The RfC closed after 30 days. TuckerResearch concluded that around 22 users (who were not single-purpose accounts) wanted to add the name, and 14 wanted to omit. Further discussion here. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 06:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 26

An unclosed deletion review.—S Marshall T/C 14:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

closed Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/TenPoundHammer

A proposed basis of closure was made by a neutral third party on 30 April . This was accepted by TPH . Since then there has been no objection and only a few minor edits to the project. The whole project is more than two months old and I would say that all the key points have been made. Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

As one of the participants, I concur with this assessment. Jclemens (talk) 07:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

closed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nishidani

In my opinion there are consensus among uninvolved admins on some kind of short term sanction either block for a week or one one month topic ban.--Shrike (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages: requests for comment/Wtshymanski

Per the header, this RFC should have been deleted about seven days ago. There is really only one "certifier". There appears to be a second, Guy Macon, but in the "Views" section he states "I am not involved in the current dispute", which means he shouldn't have made himself a certifier. Jeh (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Jeh posted the above closure request without giving me time to reply to his concerns (Three minutes between bringing his concerns up at the RfV/U and posting this closure request). I was not involved in the specific incident leading up to this RfC/U, but I have attempted to resolve the specific incident (which I was not involved in prior to my attempts to resolve it). Specifically, I once again urged Wtshymanski on his talk page to discuss his behavior and attempt to come to an agreement on what is and is not acceptable. My comments were deleted without response, thus I believe that I have tried and failed to resolve the specific conflict that triggered this RfC/U.

The original poster of this RfC (an inexperienced IP editor, so we should cut him some slack about properly crafting his complaint) complained about a long-running pattern of behavior and a specific incident that highlights the pattern of behavior. I certified that I had previously tried to resolve the long-running pattern of behavior and that I have now tried to resolve the specific incident.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct says that the purpose of the RFC/U is to "Allow a number of users to collaborate in discussing wider issues they see with a particular editor's conduct". That is what is happening here. There is a lively discussion going on, and Wtshymanski himself just recently decided to respond - a major breakthrough from someone who regularly deletes any attempts to discuss his behavior. The RfC/U is productive should be allowed to continue. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

There is now a third certifier. If you want I can ask a dozen editors to try to resolve this same dispute so we can watch them fail. After years and years of pissing everyone off and multiple complaints on multiple noticeboards, Wtshymanski has yet to engage in a meaningful conversation about his behavior. He deletes most attempts at communicating with him -- usually with no comment but occasionally with a sarcastic comment. I can show you many examples if you wish. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose The only reason this isn't a dogpile on W's long-running and unacceptable editing behaviour is that he's so obstinate he has simply outlasted most of those who've encountered him. A moment's searching of the usual suspect boards will show what an utter pain he has been to many people already, not just for this issue. I haven't commented because I really am too busy at present. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)