| Revision as of 14:51, 25 April 2015 editJytdog (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers187,951 edits →Requests for comment: r← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:10, 25 April 2015 edit undoDoors22 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users624 edits →Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Doors22_-_a_longtime.2C_POV-pushing_editorNext edit → | ||
| Line 158: | Line 158: | ||
| ====]==== | ====]==== | ||
| Not an RfC but i don't know where else to put this. Looking for a close on this thread. ] (]) 14:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC) | Not an RfC but i don't know where else to put this. Looking for a close on this thread. ] (]) 14:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :As the subject of this incident, I agree that it would be nice to close the thread. Since the thread became very long, I'd like to highlight that the original report pinged every user whom JYTDog felt had problems with my editing. The result ended up being a form of ] although I do not mean to imply that he did this intentionally. Most of the editors who participated were pinged in the original message. Most of the remaining editors who were not pinged had previously interacted with JYTDog in some capacity (both mostly positive but some negatives too). | |||
| :I recognize original filing is not without merit. A personal content dispute resulted in a battleground and I take personal responsibility for my actions. JYTDog and Formerly98 were party to the battleground as other participants in the incident report have noted. It would be impossible for this to be the result of a single editor. JYTDog also that this is a personal content dispute is at play. If this incident is closed, I will consciously modify my editing style going forward so that this does not come back to the noticeboards. If JYTDog and Formerly98 do the same, this won't be an issue any longer. ] (]) 17:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:10, 25 April 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, 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 closure is 30 days (opened on or before 20 December 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 businessXfD
CfD backlog
There are currently many open discussions, including some going all the way back to December. Please see the list at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion#Discussions_awaiting_closure. - jc37 17:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 21
There are twelve discussions of Feb 21 still open while it's nearly two months later. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Down to ten discussions as of now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Don't think so, I still count 12. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 20#Plowback retained earnings
Can an uninvolved administrator take a look at this one? It was originally opened on Feburary 19, but was the subject of a deletion review and was overturned as relist on March 19. (Initiated 3594 days ago on 19 March 2015) Natg 19 (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_11#Template:Infobox_British_Columbia_school_district
Seemingly it is about to be deleted, but any experienced admin may have a look. Hajme 16:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2015 March 7
One file in here that everyone seems to have forgotten about, and is over a month old. Closure would be appreciated by any admin who knows naything about images and NFCC. (Initiated 3606 days ago on 7 March 2015) EoRdE6 00:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Requested moves
Anyone have a mop? Some of the discussions there are backed up all the way from early February. Erpert 08:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Piracy_in_Somalia#Requested_move_8_April_2015
Would someone be able to close this requested move discussion, which has been inactive for two weeks? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Requests for comment
Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#Should_another_move_request_at_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_be_permitted.3F
Though not a formal RfC, I'm requesting a formal closure here due the potentially controversial nature of the question. NickCT (talk) 18:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Talk:2 May 2014 Odessa clashes#Requested move 3 March 2015
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2 May 2014 Odessa clashes#Requested move 3 March 2015 (Initiated 3610 days ago on 3 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Korean American#Requested move 11 March 2015
Requesting closure on Talk:Korean_American#Requested_move_11_March_2015. (Initiated 3602 days ago on 11 March 2015). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request
Pursuant to the discussion currently being held at the Village Pump, if there is determined to be a consensus that another move discussion is permissible with respect to Hillary Rodham Clinton, such a discussion will likely be initiated sometime within the next few weeks. As with the previous effort on this matter, it is requested that a three-admin panel be convened to determine the consensus of the community in this discussion. Such a panel should be composed of three administrators who are experienced in closing RMs, and who are uninvolved with article at issue, and have not previously participated in these discussions. The panel members would be expected to monitor the discussion and enforce civility and protocol, and close it at the end of the allotted discussion period. In light of the last experience, it would also be appreciated if the panel members were to make sure to be available to close the discussion and make a determination of consensus quickly. bd2412 T 04:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- @BD2412: I'm a non-admin who has closed a lot of RM discussions before, so would be happy to volunteer if needed. Mdann52 (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- I have no objection to an experienced non-admin being on such a panel, if the other two members are admins. bd2412 T 12:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Am happy to volunteer if theres a general view that a three-closer panel is needed. I think the panel idea should be flagged at the RfC, in case this (also) is subject to objection. Not suggesting a !vote on it, just something noting this is the proposed close method. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks - that makes two. I will make a note on the discussion draft. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Note: The Village Pump discussion has closed with a determination that a new move discussion is permissible. This discussion will be initiated within the next few days at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request. bd2412 T 02:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Am happy to volunteer if theres a general view that a three-closer panel is needed. I think the panel idea should be flagged at the RfC, in case this (also) is subject to objection. Not suggesting a !vote on it, just something noting this is the proposed close method. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- I have no objection to an experienced non-admin being on such a panel, if the other two members are admins. bd2412 T 12:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Exceptions to Small Caps
An admin is requested to close this RfC about whether there should be certain exceptions for the MOS's general prohibition of the use of smallcaps, exceptions to accommodate specific usages and WP:CITEVAR. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Seconding this request for closure. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Roy Moore#Non-notable Play?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Roy Moore#Non-notable Play? (Initiated 3627 days ago on 14 February 2015)? The opening poster wrote:
There's a section called Judge Roy Moore is Coming to Dinner about a play which is a parody of Judge Roy Moore. If it is notable it should probably have it's own page as the play does not feature him at all. However, there's limited WP:SOURCES on this and the play's creator. Seems like WP:FRINGE ...
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Breda O'Brien#RfC
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Breda O'Brien#RfC (Initiated 3621 days ago on 20 February 2015)? The opening poster wrote:
Should the lead include the sentence from the body of the article:
- ... and to same-sex marriage, but does not now oppose civil partnership.
Or should the lead remain simply:
- O'Brien opposes same-sex marriage.
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Talk:North Bergen, New Jersey#RfC: Should the parent and child category both be added to this article?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:North Bergen, New Jersey#RfC: Should the parent and child category both be added to this article? (Initiated 3625 days ago on 16 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Done Talk:History of Scotland#RFC
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:History of Scotland#RFC (Initiated 3602 days ago on 11 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Talk:List of Robot Chicken episodes#Replace with summary, or merge?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Robot Chicken episodes#Replace with summary, or merge? (Initiated 3631 days ago on 10 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Already done Closed on April 20th by Spartaz. AlbinoFerret 14:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Prometheus (2012 film)#RfC: Multiple announcements for sequel of production progress and release dates for Prometheus 2
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Prometheus (2012 film)#RfC: Multiple announcements for sequel of production progress and release dates for Prometheus 2 (Initiated 3605 days ago on 8 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Institute of Economic Affairs#RfC: How should the funding section be presented?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Institute of Economic Affairs#RfC: How should the funding section be presented? (Initiated 3598 days ago on 15 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Not done Archived discussion, participants worked it out and did not need a closing. AlbinoFerret 20:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Multi-sport events#Separate Beach volleyball at the 2014 Asian Games
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Multi-sport events#Separate Beach volleyball at the 2014 Asian Games (Initiated 3683 days ago on 20 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Splitting up the MfD
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Splitting up the MfD (Initiated 3619 days ago on 22 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thread was archived to Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 121#Splitting up the MfD without having been closed. Closure still necessary. Kraxler (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Harassment#WP: OUTEX
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Harassment#WP: OUTEX (Initiated 3615 days ago on 26 February 2015)? See the subsection Misplaced Pages talk:Harassment#RfC: Links related to paid editing. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- I second this request, discussion has now completely ceased. Thryduulf (talk) 08:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Help talk:Referencing for beginners#RfC: What method first
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Help talk:Referencing for beginners#RfC: What method first (Initiated 3600 days ago on 13 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Talk:G. Edward Griffin#RfC on laetrile, Talk:G. Edward Griffin#RfC on sources
Open since 22 March, well into WP:DEADHORSE territory. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- I would second this. Consensus is clear. SamuelDay1 (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Doors22_-_a_longtime.2C_POV-pushing_editor
Not an RfC but i don't know where else to put this. Looking for a close on this thread. Jytdog (talk) 14:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- As the subject of this incident, I agree that it would be nice to close the thread. Since the thread became very long, I'd like to highlight that the original report pinged every user whom JYTDog felt had problems with my editing. The result ended up being a form of WP:Votestacking although I do not mean to imply that he did this intentionally. Most of the editors who participated were pinged in the original message. Most of the remaining editors who were not pinged had previously interacted with JYTDog in some capacity (both mostly positive but some negatives too).
- I recognize original filing is not without merit. A personal content dispute resulted in a battleground and I take personal responsibility for my actions. JYTDog and Formerly98 were party to the battleground as other participants in the incident report have noted. It would be impossible for this to be the result of a single editor. JYTDog also agreed that this is a personal content dispute is at play. If this incident is closed, I will consciously modify my editing style going forward so that this does not come back to the noticeboards. If JYTDog and Formerly98 do the same, this won't be an issue any longer. Doors22 (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)