Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Clarification of WP:3RR

(Initiated 1881 days ago on 6 April 2019) Could an experienced editor assess the consensus here? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

 Note: archived without official closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive308#Clarification of WP:3RR --DannyS712 (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - Due to its relevance, I recommend formal closure of this thread. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

{{Not done}} A specific example of editors disagreeing whether a certain edit counts as a "revert" does not require closing. Both editors who edit-warred were at fault here and it's clear there is no consensus that El C's judgement was incorrect or that the WP:3RR policy needs to be changed. The fact that the discussion died indicates as much. If you wish such a change to happen, propose it in a RFC. Regards SoWhy 16:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#HuffPost article on WP COI editing

(Initiated 1903 days ago on 15 March 2019) Could an experienced editor assess the consensus here? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Not done - Does not require a formal closure or a formalized reading of consensus. See AN. Users have already been advised the proper way to make a policy proposal should they wish to do so. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Reply - @Swarm:, per WP:BRD, I think we should have an administrator not involved in this discussion make that decision, not you, nor I. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• {{Not done}} As an uninvolved admin, I agree with Swarm here. The discussion brought up a number of previously discussed points but regarding the HuPo article there seems to be consensus that a) the article was written by someone who has no idea how Wikipedia works and b) the editor mentioned in said article has not violated any policies or ToU. As WP:PAID#Changing this policy is clear that any changes to how we handle paid editing itself "must be conducted in a manner consistent with the standard consensus-based process for establishing core policies", even if there were any consensus to make changes to PAID (which I don't see), it would not be sufficient to actually change the policy. So there is nothing to formally close here which is why I am marking this as not done with the suggestion that those who wish to see a change in policy initiate a RFC as described on WP:PAID and not have such conversations at AN where many editors will not see it. Regards SoWhy 16:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 April 10#Concord Orchestra

(Initiated 1875 days ago on 12 April 2019) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 15:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} by Jo-Jo Eumerus - diff. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Two_uncivil_remarks_by_User:TenPoundHammer

(Initiated 1861 days ago on 25 April 2019) Could an experienced editor assess the consensus here? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

{{done}}. Next time, remember that clear cases such as this one should not be listed here per instruction #1. Regards SoWhy 15:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:George Pell#Request for comment about coverage of some of the actions of Pell’s barrister

(Initiated 1896 days ago on 22 March 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:George Pell#Request for comment about coverage of some of the actions of Pell’s barrister? An editor suggested an impartial closer is needed. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• This Request for comment was closed by El C. See the diff. Dolphin (t) 13:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• {{done}} (for the bot) --DannyS712 (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#Proposal to change the main infobox image to conform to standard Wikipedia policy

(Initiated 1891 days ago on 26 March 2019) This discussion began more than a month ago, and the discussion seems to have died out almost 3 weeks ago, from this date. There appears to be a clear consensus to change the map image in the main infobox on the Israel article to the proposed map image, with some disagreements on including the West Bank (and the Gaza Strip, in some cases). (In any case, I personally prefer not to include the West Bank in any way until the Israeli Government moves to unilaterally annex the region, given the current criteria for the disputed territories to be both claimed and controlled, such as the maps for Russia, China, and Morocco.) Despite the clear consensus for changing the map image, I feel unconformable with closing the discussion myself, given the highly polarized nature of the topic (Israel) and also because I happen to be the person who began the discussion. As such, I would like an uninvolved administrator to bring the discussion to a close. I will not change the map image until after the RfC has been formally closed. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@Favonian, Jpgordon, Malik Shabazz, and KrakatoaKatie: Would one of you be willing to formally close this RfC? Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but I co-wrote WP:ARBINFOBOX2, so I don't think it would be appropriate for me to close an RFC that has something to do with an infobox.Katie^talk 23:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, but on top of the fact that I'm a regular contributor to both the article in question and its talk page, I haven't been an administrator for almost four years. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

{{Done}} Abecedare (talk) 03:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump)#Requested move 12 April 2019

(Initiated 1875 days ago on 12 April 2019) Could an admin please close this? It is a contentious issue.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  16:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} by StraussInTheHouse --DannyS712 (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

 Undone by StraussInTheHouse – Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  21:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

{{not done}} for now - discussion was closed and relisted at Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump)#Fresh start: Discussion of multiple titles due to issues with the RM. Given that the discussion has started fresh, it should not be closed at this time. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem#Request for comment (RfC) on inclusion of Infobox mathematical statement

(Initiated 1899 days ago on 19 March 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem#Request for comment (RfC) on inclusion of Infobox mathematical statement? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 01:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Tutorial#Headings

(Initiated 1893 days ago on 24 March 2019) Can an uninvolved editor evaluate the consensus here and close it? Interstellarity (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

{{not done}} Per the note at the top of this page, 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, such as when the discussion is about creating, abolishing or changing a policy or guideline. - formal closure is not needed at this time, given the dearth of discussion. There seems to be no objections to the proposal, with all discussion focusing on tweaks to the design. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 1#Category:Establishments in New York City by year

(Initiated 1917 days ago on 1 March 2019) Discussion stalled since 16 March. Please would an admin assess the consensus here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)