Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:40, 14 December 2012

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, 3, 4, 5

The Requests for closure noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Misplaced Pages. Most discussions do not need to follow a formal process for closing and summarizing the result.

Requests for closure

Article namespace

Talk:Caste/Archive 4#RfC: Does the article minimize the centrality of India to the notion of caste?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Caste/Archive 4#RfC: Does the article minimize the centrality of India to the notion of caste? (initiated 4 September 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Chetniks#RfC: Is there WP:RSN consensus that Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War is reliable source

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Chetniks#RfC: Is there WP:RSN consensus that Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War is reliable source (initiated 23 September 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything to assess really? The editors there seem to have come to an agreement and moved on. NW (Talk) 22:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

A definitive closure would be good. Armbrust 22:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Political activities of the Koch brothers#RFC: Inclusion of material about Fred Koch's politics and influence on this sons

This RfC has been open for 24 days and the last comment was five days ago. Thank you. - MrX 18:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages namespace

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Categorization of persons

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Categorization of persons? Please also consider John Carter (talk · contribs)'s comment at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Categorization of persons#Possible wrapup:

I think that it would make sense, sometime in the future, to have the request for comment here be gone over by someone, possibly uninvolved, who could "boil down" the various comments into clear proposals.

This could facilitate a Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Categorization of persons 2, which would have a clearer scope and outcome. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Airports#New RfC

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Airports#New RfC (initiated 22 September 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is now archived at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Archive_12#New_RfC. Armbrust 09:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:did you know#Let's extend the 5 day viability period to 10 days

Needs an appropiate closure. Eraserhead1's closures on DYK caused spark, so any other administrator is recommended. --George Ho (talk) 04:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

 Comment: Discussion is now archived at Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/Archive 86#Let's extend the 5 day viability period to 10 days. Armbrust 04:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why anyone would close anything at DYK to be honest. You guys will just complain regardless and the behaviour was so bad in the last closure that you guys couldn't agree sensible conditions for a review of the last closure.

Additionally, you, the requester, made no effort to defend either the closure or the review. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

To be clear there is no particular problem with challenging my closure - we all make mistakes. However at the end of the day you guys were responsible for the review request. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Genetics/GMO articles

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Genetics/GMO articles (initiated 3 October 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style#Three corrections

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at the RfC at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style#Three corrections (initiated 7 October 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

As best I can tell, this is seemingly several RfCs in one. Under discussion are proper nouns, and the usage of capitalisation, hyphens and the types of dashes. I'll read over it again after I've had some sleep, but someone else is obviously welcome to close it in the meantime. - jc37 08:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Eurovision#RfC on the article layout of Eurovision Song Contest by country articles

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Eurovision#RfC on the article layout of Eurovision Song Contest by country articles (initiated 13 October 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#RfC:_Can_cover_art_can_be_used_within_articles_on_authors.2Fbands.3F

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#RfC:_Can_cover_art_can_be_used_within_articles_on_authors.2Fbands.3F? Gracias. --Noleander (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 25

Unclosed deletion reviews, closer should be aware of the SchuminWeb user RFC.—S Marshall T/C 01:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The user rfc is at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/SchuminWeb. Armbrust 02:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I handled the land mine and three others. I don't find discussion on the remaining three to be something I can comfortably close. The overturners seem to have a point, but are expressing it so badly that I feel like I am having to spot them too many points.—Kww(talk) 03:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Your final conclusion that a "complete overturn" being as bad and thus not advocating for it is complete nonsense - no one was comprehensively arguing that every image was valid but that the nomination and actions had wiped out valid images amongst invalid images. The phrase "100 guilty men go free to one innocent in prison" comes to mind. There is an undercurrent of the closer veto that is becoming problematic, a user who wants to control what wikipedia is will not participate in discussion to instead rule over the debates by having the power to close discussions the way they see fit, it's anti the consensus basis wikipedia was built on and explains a lot of the general angst by basic membership to administrators with a broad brush and no accountability. –– Lid 07:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Ticker symbols in article leads

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Ticker symbols in article leads has been open for more than thirty days. I believe it's time for an uninvolved party to close the discussion. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm new around here, but it seems to me like this RfC was badly conducted. The introduction failed to adequately articulate the possible options moving forward, and the OP's original comment set up a structure encouraging !voting rather than discussion. VanIsaac_{WS Vex} 04:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you mean by "set up a structure encouraging !voting rather than discussion." You don't seem to have had any issue closing discussions such as Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts#RFC on WP:MMA's use of Flag Icons in relation to MOS:FLAG or Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Soap Operas#Romances in which there was actual boldface voting. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

    Yes, that's exactly how these things usually work - each editor gets to add their own perspective into the thread, which often includes whether they support or oppose the proposed action. This allows others to see, at a glance, what course a given editor thinks should be adopted, but also encourages the debate and discussion of policy and guidelines. Setting up numbered votes, and having the first one be a simple signature pretty much encourages simple yes/no without discussion, and precludes an opposing viewpoint from being incorporated into the flow of the discussion. You ended up with a half dozen different sets of "views by" for people to vote on, and we ended up with a list of over a hundred people who agree with one or more of the points of one those viewpoints, or maybe just the conclusion of that particular view. In other words, people could vote on something, but really weren't able to actually discuss it in a cohesive way. That's what I mean by "badly conducted". VanIsaac_{WS Vex} 07:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

  • It's standard practice for an RFC to include views from individual editors in which readers/commenters add their support to the respective view. The introduction adequately discussed the background and laid out the options, which were pretty straightforward for the discussion: keep the ticker symbols in the article lead or don't. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
    • The way it was set up did not allow for any discussion, which was noted. I would basically say that it was set up by someone who had no idea why or whether ticker symbols should be in the lead sentence, but wanted to get rid of them anyway, and added a lengthy series of seven reasons to get rid of them, most of which if not all were refuted as false, by someone who did know why they are there. Apteva (talk) 07:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Other namespaces

• None currently.

Premature close requests

• None currently.

Thanks to closers

Thank you, Drmies (talk · contribs), Beeblebrox (talk · contribs), TParis (talk · contribs), and Jafeluv (talk · contribs), for your RfC closes. Although the previous section was moved to Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Comments from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure main page, I'd rather place the thank you note here so it will be more visible to RfC closers. Cunard (talk) 07:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Drmies (talk · contribs), Dennis Brown (talk · contribs), TParis (talk · contribs), Hobit (talk · contribs), Joe Decker (talk · contribs), Sven Manguard (talk · contribs), Sandstein (talk · contribs), Beeblebrox (talk · contribs), NULL (talk · contribs), Jafeluv (talk · contribs), Tijfo098 (talk · contribs), Nathan Johnson (talk · contribs), BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs), Electriccatfish2 (talk · contribs), and Moe Epsilon (talk · contribs), for your closes. Cunard (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Eraserhead1 (talk · contribs) for closing the discussion on WT:ITN and finally resolving this issue. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 20:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Moe Epsilon (talk · contribs), Nathan Johnson (talk · contribs), Churn and change (talk · contribs), Jafeluv (talk · contribs), MBisanz (talk · contribs), Thine Antique Pen (talk · contribs), DrKiernan (talk · contribs), Beeblebrox (talk · contribs), Eraserhead1 (talk · contribs), Futuretrillionaire (talk · contribs), Drmies (talk · contribs), Dr.K. (talk · contribs), Armbrust (talk · contribs), Philosopher (talk · contribs), Samsara (talk · contribs), Basalisk (talk · contribs), Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs), Mike Selinker (talk · contribs), MER-C (talk · contribs), I Jethrobot (talk · contribs), and TParis (talk · contribs) for your closes. I am grateful to you all. Cunard (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks to editors User:Churn and change and User:Eraserhead1 for their help in closing the RfC at Monty Hall problem. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 02:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Armbrust (talk · contribs), Jc37 (talk · contribs), Σ (talk · contribs), Nathan Johnson (talk · contribs), SilkTork (talk · contribs), MSGJ (talk · contribs), Callanecc (talk · contribs), Alanscottwalker (talk · contribs), TParis (talk · contribs), and Eraserhead1 (talk · contribs), for your closes. Cunard (talk) 02:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to 28bytes (talk · contribs) for closing two very long ban discussions. NE Ent 23:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Hasteur for putting us out of our misery at an RfC/U that had gone on too long. --Surturz (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Administrative backlog