| Revision as of 21:51, 30 April 2017 editTenebrae (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users155,424 edits →Talk:RuPaul%27s_Drag_Race#Request_for_comment: indent← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:53, 30 April 2017 edit undoTenebrae (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users155,424 edits →Talk:RuPaul%27s_Drag_Race#Request_for_comment: replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 148: | Line 148: | ||
| :::::And your only argument at this point what other editors are doing. So keep disrupting the wiki. Your behavior will be brought to ] in time. <small>''']''' (])</small> 21:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC) | :::::And your only argument at this point what other editors are doing. So keep disrupting the wiki. Your behavior will be brought to ] in time. <small>''']''' (])</small> 21:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::So my saying that other editors are behaving well and discussing things reasonably is a problem? Really?--] (]) 21:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- -------------- Place new discussions above this line | <!-- -------------- Place new discussions above this line | ||
| {{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}} --> | {{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}} --> | ||
Revision as of 21:53, 30 April 2017
| 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.
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 27 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
RfCs
Misplaced Pages talk:Conflict of interest#Investigating COI policy (2nd request)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Conflict of interest#Investigating COI policy (Initiated 2891 days ago on 27 January 2017)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- I've added a part of the overall discussion, Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Concrete_proposal_1, separately below. Without comment on what the results should be, I believe that the overall discussion will be difficult to close, but that Concrete proposal 1, should be very easy to close, and, as the original proposer, I'd rather not see it get lost in the shuffle. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Link to a request for a three-person close of the RfC: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Re-requesting closure of Misplaced Pages talk:Conflict of interest#Investigating COI policy. Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Restored from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 23#Misplaced Pages talk:Conflict of interest#Investigating COI policy. Closer Primefac (talk · contribs) self-reverted their close and wrote, "I reverted the closure because of concerns with the wording, not with the overall result. Another editor (or two) to add to the close discussion will result in a much more polished result. I see no reason to not partake in that discussion." The other closer, S Marshall (talk · contribs) wrote, "Primefac being uncomfortable with it, I'll accept that the close should be vacated and redone by someone else."
I am listing this discussion here since Primefac would like another editor or two to participate in another close.
- Milieu 3, Milieu 4, Concrete proposal 1, Concrete proposal 2, and Concrete proposal 3 need separate closures from uninvolved closer(s). I already closed milieu 1, milieu 2, and milieu 5. George Ho (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- Milieu 3, Concrete proposal 1 and Concrete proposal 2 have been closed by me.Winged Blades 12:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- I've been thinking. After closing all the milieus and concrete proposals, I wonder whether closing the remainder of the whole discussion as a whole is possible. If not, how about separately closing "RfC discussion" (including Break 1), Break 2, and Break 3? George Ho (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:RFC on Russian Interference Opening - Conclusion versus accused
Could an experience and uninvolved editor close the following RFC. It relates to the wording in both Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections and United States presidential election, 2016. (Initiated 2851 days ago on 7 March 2017) Casprings (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Casprings: After just over four days? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: Yeah, you are right.Casprings (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: I think now it's time. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: Yeah, you are right.Casprings (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I think we have enough time and enough people have taken part in the discussion.Casprings (talk) 11:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 132#Future years- how far is too far?
Would an experienced editor assess consensus at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 132#Future years- how far is too far? (Initiated 2872 days ago on 15 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Charles Murray (political scientist)#RfC about SPLC identifying Murray as a White Nationalist
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Charles Murray (political scientist)#RfC about SPLC identifying Murray as a White Nationalist (Initiated 2853 days ago on 6 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:User categories#Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories.
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:User categories#Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories. (Initiated 2870 days ago on 17 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Songs#RfC: Should Infobox single and Infobox song be merged?
Requesting uninvolved closer. (Initiated 2852 days ago on 7 March 2017) --George Ho (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 137#RfC: LTA Knowledgebase
Could an uninvolved user please assess the consensus of this discussion and close it? You'll have to drag it out of the archive in order to do so. Thanks! (Initiated 2882 days ago on 5 February 2017) Mz7 (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Sebastian Gorka#RfC regarding antisemitism
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sebastian Gorka#RfC regarding antisemitism (Initiated 2859 days ago on 28 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Talk:International Justice Mission#Request for comment on placement of criticism
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:International Justice Mission#Request for comment on placement of criticism (Initiated 2851 days ago on 8 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted due to low participation. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement#RfC about lead
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement#RfC about lead (Initiated 2853 days ago on 6 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Relisted:-Winged Blades 06:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Kara-Khanid Khanate#RfC about the languages in the lead
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kara-Khanid Khanate#RfC about the languages in the lead (Initiated 2849 days ago on 10 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Talk:United States presidential election, 2020#RFC: Should the Speculative Candidates sections be removed?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States presidential election, 2020#RFC: Should the Speculative Candidates sections be removed? (Initiated 2837 days ago on 22 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Talk:2017 Olathe, Kansas shooting#RfC about adding victim's family's reaction to "Reactions" section
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2017 Olathe, Kansas shooting#RfC about adding victim's family's reaction to "Reactions" section (Initiated 2835 days ago on 24 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Harassment#RfC regarding "non-editors"
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Harassment#RfC regarding "non-editors" (Initiated 2838 days ago on 21 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Drafts#RfC: Draft classifier template
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Drafts#RfC: Draft classifier template (Initiated 2844 days ago on 15 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Talk:American Automobile Association#RfC on list of AAA regional clubs
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:American Automobile Association#RfC on list of AAA regional clubs (Initiated 2838 days ago on 21 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Talk:James O'Keefe#RfC about attributing accusations of selective editing
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:James O'Keefe#RfC about attributing accusations of selective editing (Initiated 2899 days ago on 19 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Microscope#Request for comment on ultramicroscope
Although there is clear consensus, there is also high contention, so would an uninvolved editor, please close this? (Initiated 2827 days ago on 1 April 2017)? Thanks, --2601:648:8503:4467:D82F:EA1A:BEAB:EF93 (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:User categories#Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories.
(Initiated 2870 days ago on 17 February 2017) Would an uninvolved admin please assess the consensus at this RfC and perform a close? Thank you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Bot policy#WP:COSMETICBOT update
Needs uninvolved closer. (Initiated 2833 days ago on 26 March 2017) George Ho (talk) 07:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal#RfC on placement of "British-Pakistani" in the lede
Needs uninvolved closer. (Initiated 2813 days ago on 15 April 2017) --George Ho (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- As the person who started the RfC, I endorse this request for closure. Could a neutral admin please close it? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Talk:RuPaul's_Drag_Race#Request_for_comment
I know this was just opened, but this was opened after a community consensus was reached and the user who disagreed with it didn't want to honor the community's thoughts. I would like a speedy closure as the user is being disruptive and preventing the community's decision from being enforced. The consensus is also nearly unanimous. (I expect the disruptive editor to show up here and say I personally attacked him by pointing out his disruption.) (Initiated 2800 days ago on 28 April 2017) nihlus kryik (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- Just wanted to clarify that the RfC was opened with the question "Can editors make subjective claims based on the primary-source episodes without providing a cite (timestamp and quote) as to what exactly was said?", this is hardly going against the consensus as the editor @Tenebrae: who opened the RfC has concerns about the consensus decision not being correctly sourced. Brocicle (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- Concur. No consensus was reached to allow editors to insert their own POV interpretations of vague statements. As for personal attacks, I can point to several by User:Nihlus Kryik at the RfC and an uncivil, off-topic and unnecessarily personal post here on my talk page, so as the saying goes, consider the source. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- And like clockwork, the two disruptive editors have shown up to disrupt more because they failed to get their way originally. Regarding the "personal attack" I supposedly made, I will point out the 500+ edits updating his edit count userbox. nihlus kryik (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- Not sure why editing one's user page is suddenly a bone of contention. And, really, did he count my individual edits over several years? That's amazing and a little worrisome. Regardless, my user page has nothing whatsoever to do with the RfC, so "I recommend you worry less about your edit count" was a needlessly personal, completely tangential comment that was designed to be nothing except an attack. It certainly doesn't involve the issue at the RfC. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- And like clockwork, the two disruptive editors have shown up to disrupt more because they failed to get their way originally. Regarding the "personal attack" I supposedly made, I will point out the 500+ edits updating his edit count userbox. nihlus kryik (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- Concur. No consensus was reached to allow editors to insert their own POV interpretations of vague statements. As for personal attacks, I can point to several by User:Nihlus Kryik at the RfC and an uncivil, off-topic and unnecessarily personal post here on my talk page, so as the saying goes, consider the source. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- And actually, except for User:Nihlus Kryik and other other editor, every one of the multiple other editors at the RfC are treating it responsibly and maturely, and no one except Nihlus Kryik and the other are making any "disruption" claims. -=-Tenebrae (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- And I guess if he's going to bring up edit counts, I'd note that Nihlus Kryik is a newbie who began editing in late 2016, when he made exactly eight edits. and then suddenly this month showed up solely on the RuPaul's Drag Race pages to insist on violating OR and to insult and denigrate longtime editors who have contributed for years to Misplaced Pages. I'm not sure why he feels an expert on Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines, when he certainly doesn't under WP:CIVIL, at least --Tenebrae (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- And your only argument at this point what other editors are doing. So keep disrupting the wiki. Your behavior will be brought to WP:ANI in time. nihlus kryik (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- So my saying that other editors are behaving well and discussing things reasonably is a problem? Really?--Tenebrae (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- And your only argument at this point what other editors are doing. So keep disrupting the wiki. Your behavior will be brought to WP:ANI in time. nihlus kryik (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Deletion discussions
Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 March 26
Several entries are open despite the discussion having concluded. (Initiated 2833 days ago on 26 March 2017) K.e.coffman (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Redirects_for_discussion#March_31
Discussion has been open almost four weeks. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Other types of closing requests
Misplaced Pages:Move_review/Log/2017_March#List of coats of arms of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom
(Initiated 2828 days ago on 30 March 2017) Started in March with the last comment being on April 3rd. Well over the seven day listing period. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Done. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Lagardère Sports and Entertainment#Merger Proposal
- (Initiated 2901 days ago on 17 January 2017) Stale discussion, needs someone to put it out of its misery please. GiantSnowman 08:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- Relisted for RFC to increase participation. --George Ho (talk) 09:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)