Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ClueBot III (talk | contribs) at 12:08, 21 December 2021 (Archiving 7 discussions to Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive 33. (BOT)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 182 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC
• WP:RFCLOSE

The Closure requests 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 appears 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 27 November 2024); if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed earlier. However, editors usually wait at least a week after a discussion opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion.

On average, it takes two or three weeks after a discussion has ended to get a formal closure from an uninvolved editor. When the consensus is reasonably clear, participants may be best served by not requesting closure and then waiting weeks for a formal closure.

If the consensus of a given discussion appears unclear, then you may post a brief and neutrally-worded request for closure here; be sure to include a link to the discussion itself. Do not use this board to continue the discussion in question. A helper script is available to make listing discussions easier.

If you disagree with a particular closure, please discuss matters on the closer's talk page, and, if necessary, request a closure review at the administrators' noticeboard. Include links to the closure being challenged and the discussion on the closer's talk page, and also include a policy-based rationale supporting your request for the closure to 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 from February of 2013 discussed the process for appealing a closure and whether or not an administrator could summarily overturn a non-administrator's closure. The consensus of that discussion 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#Non-admin closure for details.

To reduce editing conflicts and an undesirable duplication of effort when closing a discussion listed on this page, please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry here. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. A request where a close is deemed unnecessary can be marked with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

Requests for closure

Administrative discussions

Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Piotrus,_User:Volunteer_Marek,_and_Haaretz

(Initiated 1126 days ago on 27 November 2021) A spillover from an original RfC that concerns the question whether said users had any business removing a specific article, where Icewhiz's narrative is presented, among others. The discussion was preemptively closed by Hemiauchenia because it became too heated. An administrative close would be welcome. (The same concerns the two other discussions, the original one and a related RfC about the same content). It would be best to have a separate editor to close each of these discussions. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Hadn't noticed this request earlier, and posted my own under "other types of closing requests". Now that my attention has be called to this one, I'm adding the text of my request below for reference. François Robere (talk) 15:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Standard COIN discussion that deteriorated quickly into PAs. The closure by an involved editor was challenged, and they expressed no objection to posting here. Given the substance question of the discussion, the fact that it spans several articles in a problematic TA, and the intensity and frequency of PAs, I believe a proper admin closure (perhaps by a panel of admins) is warranted. With thanks. François Robere (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki: This is actually the fourth discussion on that matter in the last four months, the first (?) being this. François Robere (talk) 12:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 4 heading

Requests for comment

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#GEOnet Names Server (GNS)

(Initiated 1144 days ago on 8 November 2021) This RSN discussion has been archived without being closed. Due to the high impact of the source this deserves a formal close. FOARP (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Hmm. Personally, I don't see that as closable, because the apparent consensus would lead to wide-ranging and impactful changes, and I don't think that discussion has sufficient participation to enact changes of that magnitude. Another closer might differ from me.—S Marshall T/C 12:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

S Marshall - Didn't the same thing happen recently with GNIS, which is equally as prominent a source? Or if more participation is needed, then a re-list for another seven days might be a good idea? FOARP (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe advertise it on WP:CENT?—S Marshall T/C 21:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

For that it needs relisting (EDIT: to be clear, I have no idea to how to do this other than by cutting/pasting, which is normally a no-no in most of Wiki's systems). Either that or start a new one? But that seems likely to draw objections for having a new discussion so soon after the last one. FOARP (talk) 09:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd agree with S Marshall that it should be CENT advertised for some period of time, perhaps also a note at WP:VPP. (noting, for the record, it was already advertised to Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (geographic features)). "Some period of time" is undefined but if participation doesn't increase substantially I'd say one month, after which I'd say it's safe to say every reasonable effort was made to increase participation. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Note: The discussion has been relisted and removed from archive. It can be found here: Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#GEOnet Names Server (GNS). Isabelle 13:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

  I fixed the heading to reflect this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk:J. K. Rowling#RFC on how to include her trans-related views (and backlash) in the lead

(Initiated 1126 days ago on 26 November 2021) This discussion is going on one week, and I wanted to bring up a suggestion that has been made on the talk page: a panel of administrator closers. This is a high profile, long, and complex RfC, and I think it justifies multiple administrators evaluating it for closure. ––FormalDude 19:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a consensus to wait for 30 days to expire. At that point we can see the status of the discussion. I am willing to serve as a closer and would not mind having a couple colleagues join in the process to ensure a thorough and fair result. Jehochman 21:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• When it's time for the closure of this RfC I'd second this and also suggest that if not an administrative close, it certainly needs the hand of more than one experience closer. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  I agree on the need for multiple editors when closing this one, and apologize to the health and time of those that take up the task as starter of the RfC as I did not expect it to be such a complex question. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Just don't close, until after the RFC-template expires. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
• I don't think we'll need to necessarily wait thirty days. Time will tell though. Greatly appreciate any admins willing to volunteer to join a panel of closers for this. ––FormalDude 21:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  FWIW @FormalDude:, this closure request is in the wrong place. We're posting about an RFC, not WP:AN discussion. GoodDay (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  Corrected. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.  10:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Also supporting a panel of three for this Rfc, which is likely to have a lasting influence well beyond this one article. I'd prefer at least one or two admins, but if it makes it any easier, I'd welcome very experienced non-admin closers who have deep command of policies and guidelines, and have demonstrated neutrality in controversial issues before, among the group of three. Mathglot (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• Let it stay up for potentially more input; let's say 30 days. Also, I strongly support a panel of at least three closers, the majority of whom should be administrators, and all of whom should be both experienced and relatively uninvolved in such issues. As wrote, this is likely to have influence beyond the specific article. -The Gnome (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
  • If a singular, uninvolved, and experienced non-admin wants to close, then they are fully within the rights, and I would support their decision to do so; we should not be dictating the requirements for a closer beyond what is required by policy, particularly for an RfC which will have limited impact despite the unusually high level of attention it is receiving. BilledMammal (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
• At a skim I'm not sure its implications are actually that global. If I were closing it I'd go for a narrow closure applicable only to this specific article, as the question (and comments) are also specific to this article and its subject, and hence the RfC result is not necessarily applicable to a different BLP. I'm sure its result may be invoked as precedent in future cases where a BLP subject has a similar background/context to JKR, but editors would still have to consider the context to decide whether the result even applies in the first place; for example, DUEness (a popular argument in that RfC) varies depending on the specific case, what's DUE in one article may not be in another (and vice versa). Probably not going to close it myself, in deference to the number of editors who have requested that it be a panel, although I don't really see the case for a panel closure here. Agree the full 30 day period should run, regardless. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the case for a panel is (1) to lend legitimacy to the close of an unusually contentious discussion and (2) to ensure that the weight given to various factors (e.g., number of !votes, policy-based arguments, and sources) reflects community consensus rather than one admin's opinion. That weight aspect might have some relevance outside the particular article, though I don't deem it likely for the close to articulate principles that could be applied directly in other instances. Newimpartial (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

    I'm generally wary about having panel closes becoming too prevalent. There are definitely times when they're useful (I'd say DM1 and DM2 are good examples), but most decisions (including very influential ones) have been made by consensus and closed by single editors (or sometimes even no editor; a lot of PAGs never formally went through "RfC" and closure). Panel closes are not only more logistically difficult and thus delay discussion closure, but also kinda move away from the general precedent. I agree with the general concern that a close should reflect community consensus and not an individual closers' opinion, but I think this applies to all closes, and in general we usually do get it right (experienced editors have a good idea for which discussions they have an opinion about or are unsuitable closers for, and hence don't close them; and WP:AN reviews the exceptions) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

    My sense is that this would be very likely to head to AN if given an "average" Admin close, but can't see that happening if a panel does the job. That would be my pragmatic argument for a panel: heading off some of the most likely outcomes that would be negative for the community. On the other hand, I don't see any negatives that would accrue from the slower resolution inherent in a panel. Newimpartial (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

    In solid agreement with Newimpartial. -The Gnome (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• When the RFC template expires (i.e. removed by legobot), a single editor (preferable an administrator) can close the RFC. So far, a panel isn't mandatory. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  A number of editors, some of whom have participated in that RfC, have submitted a solid reasoning for asking for more than one editor to close it down. To treat this as a "routine" RfC would be wrong, especially having in mind the many contentious arguments in Misplaced Pages about subjects related to the rights of trans persons. -The Gnome (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  But if a single editor were to close the RfC, especially an inexperienced one, just imagine the potential for future dwama!!! Oh my! Bastun 12:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  There does seem to be a consensus of editors wishing for a panel closure. Unilateral closure is clearly inadvisable. When 30 days passes, I think a notification should be made to WP:AN to request volunteers for said panel (it's a better venue than here for that purpose). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support request for closure for a majority-admin and fully experienced panel of three, after a minimum of 30 days has passed. Bastun 12:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
• I just hope however it's closed, there'll be no protesting over the result. GoodDay (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

  That's why to wait the full 30 days and use a panel of closers.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• Yikes that's big. It should run the full 30 days to ensure no one complains about process. I agree with PR above about panel closures, so I would recommend this just be closed by a single person. It's a big discussion but nothing that a single person can't handle. Panels are usually a waste of time except in cases like WP:RFA2021 or WP:AHRFC where there are multiple proposals that can be split between closers before coming back to summarize the whole thing. Forcing two or three people to read the whole thing just isn't a good use of time; better to just handle problems at AN (or the new WP:XRV) in the unlikely event the closer you find does a bad job. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
• Agree with Wugapodes on all of those counts, and, we don't want discussion participants specifying how the close will be made. Closing that looks like a bitter, tedious chore with a near-certainty of drama directed at you whatever the outcome and I would anticipate a lack of volunteers to do it.—S Marshall T/C 10:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Sumerian King List#RfC on including/excluding the full list of kings

(Initiated 1120 days ago on 2 December 2021) This RfC is not going anywhere; no new editors are joining in and no one is convincing anyone to "change sides", and has devolved into reiterating the same arguments over and over and questioning the competence and good faith of the opposing side. Just counting the votes it is pretty clearly a no consensus result but I'm requesting closure because as I understand it discussions are not determined only by votes (so an uninvolved and experienced editor reading through would be good) and since in this case the RfC is on whether a table that was removed six months ago should be added back a closer is also needed to determine what the status quo to be maintained actually is in the case of no consensus. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk:List of presidents of the United States § Request for comment: sortability, scope metadata, order § 2: Scope metadata

(Initiated 1113 days ago on 9 December 2021) This is one part of a multi-part RfC, and I'm only requesting closure of this part (question 2). It has a rather obvious result, with a 14–1 tally of !votes. It's becoming a pile-on, and more comments probably won't change anything. I'd close it myself, but I opened the RfC and commented in it. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading

Deletion discussions

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 4 heading

Other types of closing requests

Misplaced Pages:Move review/Log/2021 November#Waukesha parade attack

(Initiated 1124 days ago on 29 November 2021) – Title of this section was Talk:Waukesha_parade_attack#Move_from_Waukesha_Christmas_parade_attack. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.  11:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC) – Please review (that discussion) --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth, the initial discussion subject to the move review has been archied here and the link you have given to the TP is to a subsequent discussion. A close is requested for the move review. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

To editor Cinderella157: yes thank you, that is correct. It was that subsequent discussion that was originally brought here to WP:CR to be closed. The collapsed discussion below hopefully explains what inspired the header change of this section from the subsequent discussion to the move review. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.  05:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Waukesha parade attack#Move from Waukesha Christmas parade attack

(Initiated 1124 days ago on 28 November 2021)

• To avoid inconsistent results, and to avoid further wastage of time and effort, please close Talk:Waukesha_parade_attack#Move_from_Waukesha_Christmas_parade_attack first, and depending on how that goes, Misplaced Pages:Move review/Log/2021 November#Waukesha parade attack may be rendered moot. Jehochman 18:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  I suggest the closing admin read both discussions and form their own view as to the order in which they should be closed. Havelock Jones (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I second Jones' request. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  We’re not voting here. This is the third parallel discussion you’ve instigated. The discussions should be closed in order oldest first. Jehochman 03:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 4 heading

• Administrative backlog
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards