Misplaced Pages

:Closure requests: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:27, 22 November 2015 editAlbinoFerret (talk | contribs)11,178 edits →Category talk:Establishments#RfC: Do these member articles of these categories include bridges?: done← Previous edit Revision as of 13:58, 22 November 2015 edit undoFlyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs)365,630 edits →Requests for closure: Talk:Domestic violence#Should the Scientific American "rates of domestic violence are roughly equal between men and women" material be included?Next edit →
Line 247: Line 247:
===]=== ===]===
Uninvolved administrator needed. --] (]) 16:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC) Uninvolved administrator needed. --] (]) 16:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


===]===

The WP:RfC tag expired. This is a contentious discussion, and an impartial administrator is needed to close it (preferably the entire "Domestic violence affects both genders and children" section it is a part of). ] (]) 13:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:58, 22 November 2015

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

    Archives
    Index
    Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
    Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
    Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
    Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
    Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
    Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18
    Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21
    Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24
    Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27
    Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30
    Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33
    Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36
    Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39

    This page has archives. Sections older than 300 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.
    Shortcuts

    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.

    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 28 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, Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion § Old discussions, Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files § Holding cell, and Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion § Old business

    Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review

    This discussion forum has an extensive backlog where the oldest active entry was started on 10 June 2015 ({{Initiated|10 June 2015}}), and at the time if me posting this request, the page has 163 discussions that have yet to be closed, several started over a month ago. Steel1943 (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

    Please update {{Initiated}} below as the backlog is (slowly) taken care of.--Aervanath (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
    (Initiated 3486 days ago on 13 June 2015)
    About 155 discussions still to be closed.

    Since this discussion board is now deprecated, and there will be no new discussions opened there, I would appreciate some help clearing the backlog.--Aervanath (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

    • I just "did" about 3 of them. For the ones where I believe could really use more discussion, I've been relisting them on WP:FFD (but not in huge droves as that would overwhelm the daily subpages over there.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Yugoslavia#Should FR Yugoslavia's image be included in the lead

    Can this RfC be closed. The consensus has been established and the article is already altered accordingly. However ,a formal closure would help to split this RfC with other that are unrelated. 94.28.177.61 (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

     On hold - The RfC has been open for less than two weeks and editors are still commenting. - MrX 17:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Yugoslavia#Should FR Yugoslavia's image be included in the lead (Initiated 3370 days ago on 7 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Umpqua Community College shooting#Photo of Harper-Mercer

    If there is consensus, it needs accurate closing rationale. George Ho (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Umpqua Community College shooting#Photo of Harper-Mercer (Initiated 3371 days ago on 6 October 2015)? There has been no discussion since 17 October 2015. As noted at Talk:Umpqua Community College shooting/Archive 4#Result of RfC on shooter photo, the discussion was prematurely archived by the bot and later restored from the archive to the talk page. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
    Actually, someone voted on the previous day, 26 October 2015. George Ho (talk) 03:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
    I took a look at it, and it looks no consensus at this point, perhaps a few more days will get some more responses. AlbinoFerret 22:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
    Five days passed, AlbinoFerret. Want to take a request? --George Ho (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Papineau (electoral district)#RfC: (Policy) Using bad practices from one article to justify another and possible sock puppetry; and (Politics) Acceptability of aggregated data in "Election Results" section

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Papineau (electoral district)#RfC: (Policy) Using bad practices from one article to justify another and possible sock puppetry; and (Politics) Acceptability of aggregated data in "Election Results" section (Initiated 3393 days ago on 14 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Hello (Adele song)#RfC: Including official video links in external links

    Would an experienced uninvolved editor assess the consensus at this RfC. Gizmocorot (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Max_Blumenthal

    Would an experienced uninvolved editor assess the consensus at this RSN discussion? (Initiated 3360 days ago on 17 October 2015) Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

    Now archived at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 198#Max Blumenthal. Armbrust 08:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2015 October 17#Several files uploaded by User:Bedford

    Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2015 October 17#Several files uploaded by User:Bedford (Initiated 3360 days ago on 17 October 2015)? Please consider the related discussion Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2015 October 19#Unused local copies of files on Commons in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

    Here are related discussions that should also be closed:
    1. Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2015 October 4#File:Clark County Courthouse Indiana 001.JPG
    2. Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2015 October 9#File:Bonnie Blue Barnstar.jpg
    3. Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2015 October 13#File:Confed Monument Russelville mid.JPG
    4. Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2015 October 13#File:Confed Monument Russelville far.JPG
    5. Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2015 October 13#File:Confed Monument Russelville.JPG
    6. Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2015 October 16#File:Nancy Lincoln Inn.jpg
    For consistency, these probably should all be closed by the same admin.

    Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2015 October 19 concluded:

    The problem is that the policy is unclear enough the any closer is pretty much going to have to make it up on the hoof and this discussion has not really moved that position forward. Usually, we would relist if the outcome isn't clear or feels unsatisfactory but I can't see that will improve matters either as the next close will have the same problem. I'm therefore closing this as no action but suggest to the nominator that they open an RFC to garner wider input into what our policy should be for keep local images

    Cunard (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
    All  Done by TLSuda. Armbrust 11:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2015 October 2#File:Natalie Gelman (2013-09-30).jpg

    Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2015 October 2#File:Natalie Gelman (2013-09-30).jpg (Initiated 87 days ago on 2 October 2024)? Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2015 October 19#Unused local copies of files on Commons might be a related discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

     Done by Nthep. Armbrust 11:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 123#Revisiting MOS:IDENTITY in articles about transgender individuals and Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Clarifying MOS:IDENTITY in articles in which transgender individuals are mentioned in passing

    Admin closure requested. These two RfCs went up on October 11. They address Misplaced Pages's policy toward transgender individuals, specifically which pronouns and names to use when discussing parts of their lives before their gender transition. The first addresses whether Misplaced Pages's current policy on biographical articles, MOS:IDENTITY, should be changed and if so to what. The second addresses whether MOS:IDENTITY should be amended to include a rule about how to refer to trans individuals in articles of which they are not the principal subject. It's been a few days since our last new comment. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

    • Both were (Initiated 78 days ago on 11 October 2024). AlbinoFerret 14:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
      • The discussions are still ongoing. This should be left open until they peter out. The issue comes up again and again, so this should run its course until exhausted, so we can be certain the discussion is as thorough as it practically can be this time. I'd advocate giving it at least a few more days, if not a week. It's more important to get a solid consensus this time than an expedient one.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  14:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
    It had been a couple days since our last new comment when I first posted this request and it has once again been a couple days since our last comment. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Blue Army (Poland)#RfC: Undue Weight - Disproportionate emphasis on a secondary issue relating to the Blue Army (Poland)

    Request to close out the Talk:Blue Army (Poland) RfC, it has expired and we do have a clear consensus established on the issue. (Initiated 3367 days ago on 10 October 2015)--E-960 (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

    Classification of Products by Activity

    It seems that all the regular admins at RfD have participated in this RfD discussion, so we need a fresh pair of eyes to close it. Deryck C. 22:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

     Done by Just Chilling. Armbrust 11:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard#Is it OK for Misplaced Pages to choose its own pronunciation symbols?

    This discussion is happening on three pages at once (NORNB, Help talk:IPA for English where it actually belongs, plus another at MOS:PRONUNCIATION). This NORNB tine of the fork has turned into another couple-of-editors-textwalling-against-each-other thing, and is actually in the wrong venue. WP:NOR pertains to the information content, not how WP presentationally wraps it. I.e., the actual content that is subject to core content policies is what the pronunciation(s) is/are. WP has multiple pronunciation transcription markup systems, and like our citation styles, this is WP-original metadata, not subject to WP:CORE. One of them is based on (mostly American) dictionary-style pronunciation keys: ; the other loosely based on IPA. Both are synthetic and are internal matters, and not subject to WP:NOR / WP:V. As long as the pronunciation that emerges in the reader's mind is verifiable, it does not matter what markup wrapper we convey it with. Both of our extant pronunciation guide systems could be replaced tomorrow with something entirely different and even more arbitrary (even one consisting of entirely WP-invented orthography, though that would not of course be practical). While I agree that OP has a point – it's not wise for us to use a WP-modified version of IPA that conflicts with IPA norms that a linguist would expect – that's not an NOR matter, but a matter for consensus discussion at the IPA for English talk page. The discussion there should remain open until naturally resolved or a closure request is made, while the one at NORNB should be closed as no consensus / off topic. (Initiated 3350 days ago on 27 October 2015)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  14:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

    Now both sides of the dispute have conceded that this won't be resolved as a WP:NOR issue, so this fork of the discussion has no reason to stay open at WP:NORNB, and can be centralized, finally, at Help talk:IPA for English, which is collectively trying to actually resolve it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  11:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive231#109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once

    "Closure by admin requested for WP:BLPN discussion BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once". (Initiated 3347 days ago on 30 October 2015) Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

    • When this is closed it definitely needs to be closed in tandem with Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_16#Category:Climate_Change_deniers. I've read through a lot this morning and have no idea what to do; there's no strong consensus to do anything (i.e. there is zero agreement on what wording to actually use) but there is pretty strong consensus that the current situation is not sufficient for BLP. There are a lot of other factors at play here too; like how some BLP's are badly categorised anyway (which the rename may have compounded). My feeling is that we're I to close this I'd do a no-consensu o what to call the category, delete the cat under WP:BLPCAT and open a neutral RFC incorporating all of the main suggestions for category naming and inclusion criteria, to resolve this in detail. --Errant 10:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks for mentioning that parallel discussion. In addition to the immediate issue, there was also a procedural disagreement about whether WP:BLPCAT claims should be decided as a BLP Incident or as a Category for Discussion. I don't know if there is an answer to that jurisdictional question but it may matter since the the two conversations had starkly different consensuses. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    IIRC, policy-based decisions trump "content decisions" and suggest that the CfD was the latter, and the BLP/N decision the former. Collect (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Battle of Britain#RfC

    Can an experienced editor assess the consensus at the above link and close the discussion? Thanks. Banedon (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Since an important point at issue is to what degree consensus of opinion can override WP:RS, I suggest that we need an experienced, disinterested and uninvolved admin to close this RfC. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
     Done by ArnoldReinhold. Sunrise (talk) 05:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:List of military occupations#How should Palestinian statehood be represented in this list?

    Need a consensus to be assessed please.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:List of military occupations#How should Palestinian statehood be represented in this list? (Initiated 3362 days ago on 15 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Rudolf Hess#Request for comment: Maser's theory

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Rudolf Hess#Request for comment: Maser's theory (Initiated 3381 days ago on 26 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Bill Cosby#Mention of allegations in lead sentence?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bill Cosby#Mention of allegations in lead sentence? (Initiated 3351 days ago on 26 October 2015)? See the subsection Talk:Bill Cosby#Which version to use?. Please consider the closed RfC Talk:Bill Cosby/Archive 3#RfC: Should the allegations of sexual assault be mentioned in the lede? in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Now archived at Talk:Bill Cosby/Archive 3#Mention of allegations in lead sentence? Armbrust 11:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 55#Owen 'Alik Shahadah

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 55#Owen 'Alik Shahadah (Initiated 3374 days ago on 3 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Deaths in 2015/Archive 2#Request for Comment: Manners of death

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Deaths in 2015/Archive 2#Request for Comment: Manners of death (Initiated 3379 days ago on 28 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Nancy Cruickshank#Edits to De-Promotionalize

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nancy Cruickshank#Edits to De-Promotionalize (Initiated 3347 days ago on 30 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

     Done Armbrust 11:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Amy Tran#Request For Comment About Page Name

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Amy Tran#Request For Comment About Page Name (Initiated 3352 days ago on 25 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

     Done. Armbrust 11:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

    Category talk:Establishments#RfC: Do these member articles of these categories include bridges?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Category talk:Establishments#RfC: Do these member articles of these categories include bridges? (Initiated 3367 days ago on 10 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Jewish Israeli stone throwing#RfC from Palestinian stone-throwing

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jewish Israeli stone throwing#RfC from Palestinian stone-throwing (Initiated 3381 days ago on 26 September 2015)? The opening poster wrote:

    Should the result of RfC on 'sister article' (Palestinian stone-throwing) be applied to this article as well? (Result:There is a consensus against inclusion of incidents without their own Misplaced Pages articles)

    Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:African Americans#RfC: What is proper number of photos for the template in this article?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:African Americans#RfC: What is proper number of photos for the template in this article? (Initiated 3379 days ago on 28 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Denali#RfC: Propose moratorium

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Denali#RfC: Propose moratorium (Initiated 3376 days ago on 1 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:War of 1812#RfC: Should we make certain content changes in War of 1812?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:War of 1812#RfC: Should we make certain content changes in War of 1812? (Initiated 3374 days ago on 3 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Superpower#RfC: Ottoman Empire superpower

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Superpower#RfC: Ottoman Empire superpower (Initiated 3370 days ago on 7 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries#RFC: Is the One Million Plan relevant to the topic of this article?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries#RFC: Is the One Million Plan relevant to the topic of this article? (Initiated 3366 days ago on 11 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Massacre of the Acqui Division#RfC: Does this article need an infobox?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Massacre of the Acqui Division#RfC: Does this article need an infobox? (Initiated 3364 days ago on 13 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

     Done Sunrise (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain#RfC - Character reception before release

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain#RfC - Character reception before release (Initiated 3381 days ago on 26 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:The Stone Roses (album)#Greatest ever vs. overrated

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Stone Roses (album)#Greatest ever vs. overrated (Initiated 3376 days ago on 1 October 2015)? See the subsection Talk:The Stone Roses (album)#RfC: Should this revision be retained?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Self-creation cosmology#RfC: Redirect?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Self-creation cosmology#RfC: Redirect? (Initiated 3381 days ago on 26 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

     Done Armbrust 11:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:C/1980 E1#C/1980 E1

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:C/1980 E1#C/1980 E1 (Initiated 3380 days ago on 27 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Cold War II#The current title

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cold War II#The current title (Initiated 3364 days ago on 13 October 2015)? See the subsection Talk:Cold War II#RfC: Accuracy of the title. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

     Done Sunrise (talk) 05:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Campus sexual assault#RfC on recent AAU campus climate survey

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Campus sexual assault#RfC on recent AAU campus climate survey (Initiated 3372 days ago on 5 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:2015 Ankara bombings#International reactions

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2015 Ankara bombings#International reactions (Initiated 3366 days ago on 11 October 2015)? See the subsection Talk:2015 Ankara bombings#RfC: Are messages of condolence worthwhile inclusions to Misplaced Pages?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Years/Archive 11#RfC: Year articles

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Years/Archive 11#RfC: Year articles (Initiated 3368 days ago on 9 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

     Done Armbrust 12:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#RfC: Change our usage of "stampede" for crowd disasters to reflect word definitions and not race, regardless of sources?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#RfC: Change our usage of "stampede" for crowd disasters to reflect word definitions and not race, regardless of sources? (Initiated 3368 days ago on 9 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Using "Vulture fund" as a page name

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Using "Vulture fund" as a page name (Initiated 3363 days ago on 14 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Redirect#RfC: Links to deleted redirects

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Redirect#RfC: Links to deleted redirects (Initiated 3381 days ago on 26 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

     Done. Armbrust 12:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2015 November 2#Wales Green Party

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2015 November 2#Wales Green Party (Initiated 3344 days ago on 2 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

     Done by Timotheus Canens. Sunrise (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2015 October 29#Joseph J. Allaire

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2015 October 29#Joseph J. Allaire (Initiated 3348 days ago on 29 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

     Done by Lankiveil. Sunrise (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#Continued Anti-Semitic concern trolling by User:Mrandrewnohome at the Reference Desks

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#Continued Anti-Semitic concern trolling by User:Mrandrewnohome at the Reference Desks (Initiated 3341 days ago on 5 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#2602:30A:2EFE:F050:6C6F:3B3D:9F18:9068 De-prodding several random articles without explanation

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#2602:30A:2EFE:F050:6C6F:3B3D:9F18:9068 De-prodding several random articles without explanation (Initiated 3343 days ago on 3 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

     Done by Spike Wilbury, and now archived at IncidentArchive905. Armbrust 12:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:ArbCom-banned Leucosticte's articles

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:ArbCom-banned Leucosticte's articles (Initiated 3341 days ago on 5 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

     Done by Müdigkeit, and now archived in IncidentArchive905. Armbrust 12:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Community discussion regarding disruptive edits to Heathenry-themed articles

    Although I am the nominator of the discussion (and thus have a clear bias), in my opinion there appears to be a clear consensus (eight votes against one) that a Topic Ban should be imposed on User:ThorLives as a sanction for their constant disruptive editing; such a ban would cover all articles and related pages (including talk pages, GANs, peer reviews, and FACs) to do with Heathenry and other forms of modern Paganism, related forms of religion, and the Germanic peoples. However, given that I am the user responsible for nominating this community discussion, I am unsure whether or not I would be authorised to bring the discussion to an end and inform ThorLives of the sanction. After all, our policy on this issue states that "If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator notifies the subject accordingly. The discussion is then closed, and the sanction should be logged at the appropriate venue if necessary, usually Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions or Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse." That being the case, it would be appreciated if such an "uninvolved administrator" could take a look at this issue, deciding whether consensus really has been achieved and if so, whether a sanction should be implemented. Many thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content#Images of victims and/or perps on crime pages

    Uninvolved administrator needed. --George Ho (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


    Talk:Domestic violence#Should the Scientific American "rates of domestic violence are roughly equal between men and women" material be included?

    The WP:RfC tag expired. This is a contentious discussion, and an impartial administrator is needed to close it (preferably the entire "Domestic violence affects both genders and children" section it is a part of). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

    Category: