Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rcsprinter123 (talk | contribs) at 19:27, 12 July 2012 (→Misplaced Pages:BON#Marking_inactive_bots_so). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

• WP:ANRFC
• WP:AN/RFC

Archives

1, 2

Requests for closure

Nation of Islam RfC

Could an uninvolved administrator close the RfC at Talk:Nation of Islam#RfC. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 13:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I've restored this request after it was removed. I believe a close is necessary to answer the question the RfC posed: "Should the first sentence of the article use the narrative voice to describe the Nation of Islam as an antisemitic, black supremacist organization, or should such descriptions be attributed to critics of the organization?" Arguments and edit wars may arise again in the future over this issue if is not settled by a close. Cunard (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. This issue isn't likely to go away. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 18:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Another request for closure

Moved from AN. Jafeluv (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like someone to look at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Agent00f; there is a "view" subscribed to by a large enough number of editors at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Agent00f#View_by_Drmies and a move to close at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Agent00f#Move_to_close. Editor in question has had ample opportunity to show a dedication to cease disruptive editing (in this case, filibustering and stalling) and has not seized that opportunity. This has been running since 12 May. Thank you in advance. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

(below comments merged from a duplicate request) – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 06:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Moved from later on this board. JJB 19:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

After attempting multiple times to get some sort of acknowledgment of the issues at hand we see a widining circle of disruption on multiple pages (Now at WP:SPI) therefore I request an uninvolved admin to step in and close down the soapbox. In no way am I advocating for any action to be taken in response to the contents of the RfC/U. I am simply asking for the closure as it is obvious to me that there will be no negotiated agreement between the certifiers and the respondant. Hasteur (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a duplicate of the request above. What's the appropriate action here? Strike, remove, leave it here? – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 06:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Scratch that, I'll just merge them together. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 06:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#Site xuarez.comoj.com and other requests

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist has a severe backlog; the oldest entries date from January. Would an admin (or admins) review:

After reviewing an entry, please post a comment on the requester's talk page because the requester may no longer be watching the page after such a lengthy period of time. MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist/Indicators may be useful. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Talk page guidelines#Archiving talk pages

Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Talk page guidelines#Archiving talk pages? The RfC is listed at Template:Centralized discussion and no discussion has occurred since 18 May 2012. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:User pages#Request for comment - Advertising on user pages

Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:User pages#Request for comment - Advertising on user pages? The RfC was listed and archived from Template:Centralized discussion and the last comment was on 20 May 2012. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

This request for closure has now been up here for over thirty days. Is there no one who is willing to close this? -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Summary_style#RfC: Should the summary style guideline quote WP:Notability and if so in what place

Could some admin please summarize this and preferable choose one of the options rather than leaving it to go on to another long dispute. There is a request below it to update the page with one of the options but with the proposer saying they will dispute what they are proposing! I am happy with that if it is a definite decision of the RfC rather than a basis for further dispute. The RfC hasn't been touched for the last day and doesn't seem to be attracting contribution so if you'd like to contribute instead please do. The page will be unprotected tomorrow and I fear if some definite decision isn't reached it will be back to what led to that. Dmcq (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Could someone please come along and close the RfC thanks. Dmcq (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Reference Tooltips

Would an admin close Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Reference Tooltips? The discussion was initiated on 18 April 2012 and was listed on Template:Centralized discussion. If there is a consensus to implement the proposal, would an admin file a Bugzilla report requesting the implementation? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment Discussion has been archived to Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_89#Reference_Tooltips. Armbrust, B.Ed. _{The Undertaker 20–0} 07:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

There's a discussion right now at Misplaced Pages:VPM#ReferenceTooltips. If there is not significant opposition, I'll file a Bugzilla request. David1217 17:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability#RfC: Amending requirements for WP:MMAEVENT

Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability#RfC: Amending requirements for WP:MMAEVENT? The discussion was initiated on 10 May 2012 and was listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Cunard (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

RfC on political topic

Sensible, diplomatic admin needed to close a 3 month old RfC at Talk:Rape_during_the_Bangladesh_Liberation_War#Request_for_comment. --Noleander (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Stub types for deletion#Do we really need this deletion discussion category?

Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Stub types for deletion#Do we really need this deletion discussion category? (initiated 20 May 2012)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Template_talk:American_cuisine#Images_in_regional_cuisine_food_templates:_inclusion_vs._exclusion

This RfC ran for 30 days and became rather heated towards the end, with considerable incivility, edit warring, and even an ANI thread. Would someone take a look to determine consensus, please? Rivertorch (talk) 09:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

But the poll started 8 June 2012, so it hasn't been 30 days yet?  Sandstein  17:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There was no consensus to begin a poll; one editor (acting in good faith but with bad judgment, imo) initiated it unilaterally, multiple editors objected to it, and its launch marked the beginning of serious contentiousness in the RfC. I supported waiting 30 days before closing the RfC—I think there's considerable precedent for that—but I can see no reason to extend an RfC simply because an editor decides to add a poll two weeks into it. Rivertorch (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I, the initiator of the poll, started it because the RfC went off course and was turning into name calling and other off topic things. The poll was intended to bring the focus back onto the question at hand. I personally would prefer to keep it open because of the issues. But if it is closed now I wouldn't object. I would however ask the closing admin take a look at the comments section closely because it appears to me that there is no real consensus in either way because several commentators stated they preferred a different image than the current one despite posting in the no image section. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 21:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Huh? The RfC and the poll both show an overwhelming consensus against having an image in the navbox template, in terms of the strength of arguments and in sheer numbers against the image. How you can possibly interpret this overwhelming consensus as "no real consensus" is very strange. In fact, none of the arguments for an image in the template have even attempted to rebut the arguments against it, and can only be interpreted as "I like it", which isn't a valid argument. Viriditas (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I second that "Huh?". There is very clear consensus to remove the image. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. There's clearly consensus to remove the current image. The question of whether to use any image at all is somewhat less cut and dried (although opinion is leaning against it), but there's no reason to maintain the presence of an image there's consensus to remove while that second question is determined. Rivertorch (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (people)#PORNBIO: yes or no? (maybe)

Would an admin summarize the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (people)#PORNBIO: yes or no? (maybe) (initiated 23 March 2012)? An RfC was held under a subsection at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (people)#RFC for more feedback (2 May 2012). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not clear what a summary would accomplish here. The discussion ran from 23 March to 18 May, with a sense that options for WP:PORNBIO were considered, & some discarded. This led to a straw poll that ran from 15 May to 3 June when Kaldari closed the poll & determined the results. No further discussion on this subject appears on that page. If any further discussion took place elsewhere, there is no link on that page to it. -- llywrch (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I withdraw this close request as the discussion was superseded by a poll that determined the changes. However, would you (or another uninvolved admin) review the poll at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (people)#PORNBIO criteria regarding awards (straw poll)? Kaldari was an involved administrator because he participated in the poll. To ensure that there are no disagreements in the future about what the consensus was because an involved editor closed the discussion, would an uninvolved admin endorse Kaldari's close if they agree with it or modify it if they don't? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Watchlist survey

Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Watchlist survey (initiated 18 May 2012)? The discussion was listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, could some gadgets be enabled that allow unread changes to be displayed differently on the watchlist, using the CSS from Misplaced Pages:Customizing watchlists? That seemed to be a position that received support in the RfC. My suggestion would be to have gadgets to enable bolding or a subtle underscore, as those received the most support. David1217 17:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Expansion of Ban Appeals Subcommittee

Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Expansion of Ban Appeals Subcommittee? Initiated 27 May 2012, the discussion was listed and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The RfC was initiated by an arbitrator. I am not sure that the ArbCom intends it to be closed by a random administrator.  Sandstein  18:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I have asked Arbitrator SilkTork (talk · contribs) to take a look. Cunard (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The Committee are in discussion on the matter, but the RfC was not an ArbCom initiative, it was started by a Committee member, but acting as a community member, as was made clear by one of the clerks - ]; as such any uninvolved admin may close the RfC with a summary of the discussion that the Committee will take on board. I took part in the discussion, so it would be inappropriate for me to close it. SilkTork 19:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Categories#RfC on "Years by country" categories

Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Categories#RfC on "Years by country" categories? Initiated 8 June 2012, the discussion was listed and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. The last comment was made on 14 June 2012. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to ban instant blocking for established editors unless a warning has been validated issued first

Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to ban instant blocking for established editors unless a warning has been validated issued first? Initiated 13 June 2012, the discussion was listed and archived from Template:Centralized discussion because of inactivity. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Acadēmica Orientālis/formerly Miradre

Intelligent, sensitive and well reasoned closure needed of this fairly problematic thread. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Republic of Ireland#ROI/Ireland

Closure needed of this discussion. Several proposals have been mooted, all with varying levels of support, but there are divides that don't seem likely to be breached by further discussion, so a neutral closure/assessment of consensus is needed. --KarlB (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians#Proposal to merge

The merger discussion must be closed if it slows down. --George Ho (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move of Stephane Charbonneau

A requested move of Stephane Charbonneau was opened almost four weeks ago, and after plenty of feedback, there hasn't been anything for a week. Especially since a parallel request was closed over a week ago, I think there should be enough evidence for an administrator to rule without fear of disenfranchising anyone. Thanks, BDD (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I may have spoke too soon. There was just another comment, though it's a vote in the direction the request is probably headed anyway. --BDD (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:BON#Marking_inactive_bots_so

I think the discussion is in my favour. Rcsprinter (gossip) @ 19:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Administrative backlog