Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:

The Requests for closure noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Wikipedia. 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.

Ball1.png

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 7 June 2015); 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.

Ball2.png

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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive for previous closure reviews.

Billiardball3.png

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 Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions and Wikipedia: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.

Contents

Requests for closure

XfD[edit]

CfD backlog[edit]

There are currently many open discussions, including some from early April. Please see the list at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure.

Thanks to those who have closed the oldest ones from January to March in recent weeks. – Fayenatic London 08:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 April#Greek Muslims[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 April#Greek Muslims (Initiated 80 days ago on 18 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Administrative[edit]

Requested moves[edit]

Requested moves backlog

Anyone have a mop? Some of the discussions there are backed up all the way from early February. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: situation is much improved, but there's still a six-week backlog of move requests. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Requests for comment[edit]

Talk:Minority language#Minority languages ​​in geographical articles[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Minority language#Minority languages ​​in geographical articles (Initiated 94 days ago on 4 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I question if this RFC is in the right place. It probably should have been done at MOS as its asking for more than just the article in question. An admin should probably close this one. AlbinoFerret 22:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Places in Bangladesh)#Request for Comments[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Places in Bangladesh)#Request for Comments (Initiated 80 days ago on 18 April 2015)? Please consider Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Proposal for WP:NCGN#Bangladesh in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#RFC: Should Sister Project links be included in Navboxes?[edit]

Total WP:SNOWBALL.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to let it run. Its still early days... Spartaz Humbug! 14:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 34 days ago on 3 June 2015) --IJBall (contribstalk) 05:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
And no activity since 9 June. This is ripe for closure.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  14:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done (non-admin closure) --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Dennis Hastert#RfC: Should the lead mention that there were allegations of sexual abuse?[edit]

There is a single editor with an oppose comment. Request closure per WP:SNOW. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

  • (Initiated 23 days ago on 14 June 2015) Not a "SNOW" close – the opinion is rather more divided than you make it out to be, as I see a few for just "abuse", and a few more for "sexual abuse". Further, your one "oppose" makes some good points. I'd advise letting it play out... --IJBall (contribstalk) 18:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Informally closed by Nyttend on June 17, so I'm marking this as "done=yes". --IJBall (contribstalk) 12:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I have re-opened the RFC, as it was closed on an extremely novel interpretation of WP:PRIMARY. See Wikipedia talk:No original research#RfC: Should "news articles" be added to WP:PRIMARY?. I am flabbergasted that an experienced editor and admin will further the notion that we can't use news reports because they fall under WP:PRIMARY. If that was the case tens of thousands of articles will fall out of compliance with our core policies, including ALL articles of politicians, current events, and many BLPs. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
At the article talk page, Cwobeel says: "If the RFC at Wikipedia talk:No original research passes, I will eat my hat and accept this closing. But until that RFC closes, this one has to remain open."[2] This is very weird. Cwobeel seems to be saying that this RFC depends on the outcome of another RFC. And that if the other RFC is closed the way that the closer of this RFC says he wants, then the close of this RFC will have to be reversed. Perhaps the admins who have been involved can figure it out, but I can't. I object to Cwobeel's reopening of the RFC in this way.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
The correct procedure for challenging a close is described here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The closure is being challenged at WP:AN#RFC closure challenge. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

  • And reopened. I'm "involved" now, but I would advise any Admin, etc. to let this one run for the full time... --IJBall (contribstalk) 23:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 52#Using launch dates in place of hull or pennant numbers in ship article titles[edit]

This RfC was opened at WT:Article titles on 26 April after long-standing disagreement on the method of disambiguating warship articles (most recently at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive_44#On_hull.2Fpennant_numbers, with links to previous discussions added in this edit). Conversation petered out around 3 May, with a few sporadic comments up to 16 May. The RFC template was removed as stale on 27 May, and autobotarchived a week later. I am requesting an uninvolved individual assess the discussion and determine what the outcome is. Could the reviewing individual please post the result at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Ship_disambiguators_RFC_had_been_bot-archived? -- saberwyn 21:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Military dates, round 2[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Military dates, round 2 (Initiated 45 days ago on 23 May 2015)? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#RfC: What does DATETIES mean for articles on US military personnel?. Please consider the earlier discussion Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 150#Military date format in biographical articles in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Can we get a bot to check the Internet Archive for dead link solutions?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Can we get a bot to check the Internet Archive for dead link solutions? (Initiated 35 days ago on 2 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Embraer E-Jet E2 family#ILFC[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Embraer E-Jet E2 family#ILFC (Initiated 45 days ago on 23 May 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Trial of George Zimmerman#Proposed merge with Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Trial of George Zimmerman#Proposed merge with Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago (Initiated 148 days ago on 9 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza shelters#RfC: Lead summary[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza shelters#RfC: Lead summary (Initiated 41 days ago on 27 May 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Archive/May 2015#RfC: How strict should MoS-JA be about name order?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Archive/May 2015#RfC: How strict should MoS-JA be about name order? (Initiated 56 days ago on 12 May 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Electronic cigarette#Merger Proposal - cloud chasing[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Electronic cigarette#Merger Proposal - cloud chasing (Initiated 30 days ago on 7 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:A Voice for Men#Is the criticism section written and sized appropriately?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:A Voice for Men#Is the criticism section written and sized appropriately? (Initiated 56 days ago on 12 May 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name)#RfC Proposal that the best way to present superlative based context specific lists is to use the article[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name)#RfC Proposal that the best way to present superlative based context specific lists is to use the article (Initiated 72 days ago on 26 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Cite isbn#Is there really a consensus not to use this template?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Cite isbn#Is there really a consensus not to use this template? (Initiated 71 days ago on 27 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Tag-OneClickArchiver#Protected edit request on 11 May 2015[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at MediaWiki talk:Tag-OneClickArchiver#Protected edit request on 11 May 2015 (Initiated 56 days ago on 12 May 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#Request for Comment: Artist/Band Timelines with Rolling Timeline End Dates[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#Request for Comment: Artist/Band Timelines with Rolling Timeline End Dates (Initiated 61 days ago on 7 May 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think formal close is needed here - I mean, the consensus is blindingly obvious... Mdann52 (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I've set this one to "done=yes" now – it has already been moved to the Talk archives there, and it seems like no "formal" close is needed in any case... This entry can probably be archived now. --IJBall (contribstalk) 18:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Module talk:Main#Print titles of related articles[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Module talk:Main#Print titles of related articles (Initiated 54 days ago on 14 May 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Red link#Proposal regarding redlinks in navigation templates[edit]

Two RfC's on redlinks in navboxes – there's considerable support to close these now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia talk:Red link#Closing redlinks-in-navboxes discussions, where talk of closing the discussion is taking place. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 10:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Too soon for a closure, especially given Flyer's link. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I also think it should be closed. I'm skeptical anyone involved does not.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  14:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support close: Pretty clear consensus, the second RfC appears to be supported by the nominator of the first, article is locked down until resolved, and though Flyer does note a heated discussion about closing, it's basically all the same people making all the same arguments, and that's going nowhere. Best to close before people get too emotional about it. Montanabw(talk) 22:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
"Pretty clear consensus" is your opinion, an opinion others have disagreed with you on. There is no need to state our personal opinion on the consensus here in this section. And the only place I called the discussion heated is at my talk page, which, yes, I know is watched by a lot of people. Flyer22 (talk) 01:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Flyer22, with all due respect, your view is outnumbered by almost a 2:1 margin. Your personal opinion is relevant here, and I have no clue about your talk page, I'm just tired of the drama at the redlink page. You can debate this to death, but it's really time to drop the stick and let someone close this. Montanabw(talk) 07:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Montanabw, with all due respect, you and others have been told by more than one editor that WP:Consensus is not a headcount; you and some others keep going on about the number of support votes vs. the number of oppose votes; that generally is not how WP:Consensus is supposed to work. I have not been arguing against a close at all; I have argued against incorrect applications of WP:Consensus and made it clear in this section that this section is not the place to be debating this, trying to influence the closer. Yes, WP:Drop the stick indeed. Flyer22 (talk) 07:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
And I reiterate that the only place I called the discussion heated is at my talk page. So how one can know that I called the discussion heated without looking at my talk page is a wonder, I suppose. Flyer22 (talk) 07:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Flyer, my point is that the discussion at the redlinks page was getting too heated and for no good reason. Its time to close this debate and please will someone please go over there and close it? You have to understand that Consensus is not "two tendentious opponents get to defy a supermajority consensus by holding their breath until they turn blue." If a 2:1 majority, with reasoned debate isn't a consensus, I don't know what is. Montanabw(talk) 20:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Your point was to come and make a needless comment at this talk page to try to influence the closer; let's not play dumb here. Everyone else's comment in this section was neutral. Yours was not. And if you are referring to me as one of the "two tendentious opponents," you are wrong. I expressed my opinion, notified relevant pages to the discussion and then got into a back and forth mess with a highly WP:Uncivil editor; more than one editor got into a back and forth mess with that highly WP:Uncivil and WP:Disruptive editor, and noted that the editor is highly WP:Uncivil; in fact, "your side" has been the provocative side. And anyone wanting to know which editor I'm talking about can see the "heated" commentary on my talk page. I was done with all of that mess, until an editor commented on my talk page about a compromise and I was later WP:Pinged in the aforementioned closing section. So let's not act like I've been trying to keep this discussion from closing, especially when I WP:Pinged two good closers to end this nonsense. Flyer22 (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────No, I merely supported the close with the comment that there was a clear consensus, I didn't say which way. It is you and you alone who are arguing against closure and stirring up the pot by your accusations of incivility and apparent refusal to agree to close the debate until you get your own way (I I am wrong and you favor closing too, then just say so.) Montanabw(talk) 00:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

No, the WP:Uncivility on the part of the editor in question is not debatable in the least. Nor is the WP:Harassment that the editor engaged in when it comes to me. If calling a spade a spade is stirring the pot, then so be it. If I really wanted to stir the pot on that matter, I would have taken it to WP:ANI. And there has been no refusal on my part to agree to close the debate until I get my own way, which is exactly why you cannot point to any such examples. Flyer22 (talk) 00:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
More stated here. Flyer22 (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC Kosovo Identification[edit]

This RfC, which asks if the current identification of Kosovo as a "disputed territory and partially recognized state" should be changed to "sovereign state," has been open for more than 7 days. During this time there have been 5 !votes from editors to change to "sovereign state" and 5 !votes from editors to keep "disputed territory and partially recognized state." (Please note that, of the five !votes for "sovereign state," one is from a SPA that is one month old and the other is from a IP editor.) The conversation has now degenerated into a routine content debate and, since there is not a majority - let alone consensus - to make the change to "sovereign state," a closure by an uninvolved editor and/or admin affirming said lack of consensus would be appreciated. LavaBaron (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, the discussion is largely taking place between one editor (IP accounts) and me. I suppose we can continue the disagreements/exchanges even in the event of a closed RfC. Should we actually reach an agreement then it will probably be accepted by all others, if not, then no harm done. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
RfCs usually run for 30 days. 7 days is too little a time to close them, unless there is overwhelming consensus. Kingsindian  03:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
LavaBaron's comment does not represent the truth, it is not true that the votes are 5 vs 5 (in my counting neither were on June, 26). The current votes are 6 votes on Sovereign state, 4 votes on Disputed Territory and Partial Recognition, and 3 votes on all options together Sovereign state, Disputed Territory and Partial Recognition. Whilst the majority of editors so far (9/13) indicated that they would like sovereignty being placed in the lede sentence, the current lede does not contain it. In addition, I would like to point out that the actual lede is not a result of any previous consensus, but as a result of unilateral updates by the editors of the "so-far" minor side of the RfC. To conclude, I would be glad if any involved admin thoroughly reads the outcome of the RfC unbiased by the comments here (including mine). Regards 95.90.184.96 (talk) 00:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
This IP is obvious sockpuppet, and should not comment here. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 00:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
To the involved admin: i) i am not a sock-puppet, ii) unfortunately such personal insults are not new with the latest editor (e.g. Talk:Kosovo), and iii) he is engaged in an edit war against the will of most editors in terms of introducing the sovereignty term (history at Kosovo). P.s.: Sad to have to respond to this level of underbelly aggression, instead of contributing to the topic. 95.90.184.138 (talk) 06:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
FTR. 13 contributors. Six chose "sovereignty" only on first line, seven chose "partially recognised" and "disputed territory" on the first line. Of those seven, there is an additional 4/3 split over whether "sovereign" should appear before "state" (because something has to be said after "partially recognised"), but nothing to warrant the absence of partially recognised and disputed territory. So clearly the consensus is to have all three listings. Oranges Juicy (talk) 08:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
FTR. In terms of combinations (the RfC question asked concrete combinations) the most voted option is sovereignty alone with 6 votes, then next is 4 votes for partially recognized and disputed territory jointly. If one would decompose the explicit combinations and count the implicit singular elements in them, then sovereignty is the most voted element with 9 votes, then partial recognition with 7 votes and disputed territory with 7 votes. Unfortunately, the current article's lede sentence not only does not start with the (most voted) sovereignty term, but sovereign does not even exist in the article at all. Therefore, the RfC so far is a major breakaway from the current article formulation, which I believe needs to be rewritten. Sure, my intention is to not ignore the opinion of the minority of editors and I think that partial recognition and territorial disputes should be naturally mentioned. E.g. it can be "Kosovo is a sovereign state (9 votes) with partial international recognition (7 votes), whose territory is disputed (7 votes) by Serbia". Nevertheless, such formulations look too heavy to me and I prefer different sentences per element: first sentence-sovereignty, second sentence-partial recognition, third sentence-territorial dispute. 95.90.184.138 (talk) 09:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
You should go back to your account (if its not blocked or banned). Its not ok to spam this many pages here on wiki per Wikipedia:SHOPPING. Go back to Kosovo talk page, and go back to your account, so we can solve this chaos you made. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 11:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Watch your words and allow the others to have a civilized discussion, who do you think you are to order editors what to do? 95.90.184.138 (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Or an easier way is "Kosovo is a disputed territory and partially-recognised sovereign state". Everything said, fewest keystrokes. And of course, "sovereign" here is added which should should no doubt please the real minority (for whom only six wanted 'sovereignty' to feature on its own) because Kosovo would be the only breakaway state in the world to feature this word in its opening sentence. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 09:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Respecting the RfC votes so far, the "disputed territory" (a minor voted element) should not be located before "sovereign state" (the most voted element). Secondly, partial/full recognition is not a mandatory criteria of a sovereign state (recognition by one UN state is sufficient for sovereignty), therefore the recognition status it is not a categorizing adjective for the word sovereignty. For this sake, I find it less logical to say "partially-recognized sovereign state", than saying "sovereign state with partial international recognition". Consequently, partial recognition is a characteristics of the Republic of Kosovo, it is not a characteristics of its sovereignty status, therefore positioning the recognition trait afterwords eliminates the ambiguity. 95.90.184.138 (talk) 12:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Seven disagree with that formula and with those principles. Let's not discuss the logistics in this space, we can do that without restriction at Talk:Kosovo. I intend to use this space merely to offer our final positions so that it can be left to admins from that point, my next post here should do that once I have established what everybody wants. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Genetically_modified_food#RfC_-_.22The_scientific_consensus_holds_that_currently_marketed_GM_food_poses_no_greater_risk_than_conventional_food..22[edit]

RfC just expired. Close will need to be thoughtful and will take some reading as there were extended comments. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Given the complexity and contentiousness of the RfC, I'd suggest that a 3-person panel would be a good idea for this. (I'm involved, so I can't volunteer.) Sunrise (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

CSD:G13 change proposals[edit]

Since discussion has died down I am petitioning for early closure on Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#4-day_delay_period_for_G13_deletions (Currently at 9/9, meaning a no-consensus to implement) and Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Sidebar_proposal (Currently at 17/1, meaning significant consensus to implement). Both discussions have died down over the weekend and it appears that consensus has made itself known. I gave notice in the discussions that I intended to petition for early closure based on the early discussions and counter proposal I made. Hasteur (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @JzG: for closing the "4 day delay" RFC. Still looking for someone to close the "sidebar proposal" discussion with a consensus evaluation so that we can move forward. I'm explicitly prohibited from closing it since I made the proposal. Hasteur (talk) 12:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Zeitgeist_(film_series)#RFC:_One_or_Two_Articles.3F_Should_film_series_and_movement_be_split.3F[edit]

Will an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Zeitgeist_(film_series)#RFC:_One_or_Two_Articles.3F_Should_film_series_and_movement_be_split.3F? (Initiated 37 days ago on 31 May 2015) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

In view of the contentiousness of this article and of recent disruptive editing, an administrative close may be preferred. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Zeitgeist_(film_series)#RFC:_Lead_of_Zeitgeist_.28film_series.29[edit]

Will an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Zeitgeist_(film_series)#RFC:_Lead_of_Zeitgeist_.28film_series.29? (Initiated 37 days ago on 31 May 2015) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

In view of the contentiousness of this article and of recent disruptive editing, an administrative close may be preferred. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 59#RfC on Bach's Magnificat[edit]

Archived by bot before formal closure. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Hillary_Clinton#Infobox heading survey[edit]

Nothing new or useful has been added to this discussion for days, and no new comments at all for over a day. There is no point to allowing as picayune a matter as the presentation of a name in an infobox to drag on any longer than it already has, so I request that a determination of consensus be made and that the discussion be closed. The entire article is currently locked down over this issue, so a swift resolution will enable a return to normal editing. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

  • There has been 3 new !votes in the last two days and discussion seems quite active. If it has slowed a little then I would suggest it is because it is a holiday weekend in the US and people are busy.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
      • +1 !vote since this was filed.
         — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
        • The subject of the discussion is a detail too minor to merit more than a week's worth of discussion, and the entire page is administratively locked pending the outcome of the discussion on this minor detail. Given the high visibility of this article, that favors a quick closure. During the week when discussion was "quite active" it was also highly circular, and contentious to the point that the aforementioned administrative lock was imposed. Lastly, after over thirty editors have weighed in (the "+1 !vote since this was filed" is probably because this was filed), opinions remain about evenly split, so there is no realistic hope of a consensus being achieved through additional argument. The only outcome of further discussion is likely to be further rehashing of points that have already been made, and a further descent into negativity. bd2412 T 21:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
          • If the closure ends in a no consensus then the protection will need to run its full course per the condition of clear consensus that was set upon it (another 6 days). If a clear consensus can be had then I would be happy to enforce it, I don't care what goes in the infobox but my concerns are in trying to prevent the edit-warring from breaking out again. If that happens then we will be looking at a one month protection unless the individual edit warriors are handled accordingly.
             — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
            • A condition unilaterally set by you, and able to be overridden by the community. It appears that you are attempting to WP:OWN the entire discussion. I therefore request that you recuse yourself from further administrative involvement in this matter. bd2412 T 00:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
              • I exercised my discretion per WP:FULL and WP:PREFER as any admin may, following that policy to the letter. It states "Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus (see above)." Further, I stated this at the ANI thread and there was no uninvolved admin that took exception or asked for this to be altered. On the contrary, it received support by consensus from those that commented. You have !voted and are involved and others have related this to you as well. This looks like you are trying to do a run around and undermine an administrative action because you don't like it. I'm owning my actions but certainly not that article. There has been one edit request which was handled since it was locked so that isn't a big deal. The one that should recuse is you.
                 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
                • I have nothing to recuse from, as I am not seeking to take any administrative action in this matter; the only such action that I have undertaken was to undo your ill-considered block of a fellow admin - which, apparently, earned your enmity. You would do well to engage in some self-reflection and consider whether there is really any reason that you need to continue being attached to this matter at all. There are other admins in Wikipedia. bd2412 T 02:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
                  • No enmity. I am concerned from your top post "The entire article is currently locked down over this issue, so a swift resolution will enable a return to normal editing" combined with a later post "...opinions remain about evenly split, so there is no realistic hope of a consensus being achieved through additional argument" and I'm drawing the conclusion that you want someone to find a no consensus just so that page protection might be lifted but that is against the purpose of having the editors work at consensus per WP:PREFER. It was faulty logic to assume that a no consensus outcome would mean page protection would be nullified prematurely and that is the only real point that I've been making. Well, I do think the request is premature because other !voters may still opine to help achieve some form of consensus. An essay not yet in project space, Consensus requires patience comes to mind. Regarding the unblock, you disregarded consulting me as you should have per policy which took from me the ability to correct my mistake. Another admin came to my talk page and explained about the edit conflict and then I came to address the issue finding that you had already decided on unblocking. It would have been cleared up anyway but I did perceive that you were lacking in respect towards me. I'm not holding onto any grudge though. But now things have the appearance that you are trying to undo another admin action of mine and I'm left wondering why? Just as you have noted about me "whether there is really any reason that you need to continue being attached to this matter at all...", I'm left to wonder the same about you. I didn't initiate the above. Nonetheless, if a no consensus outcome is found upon closure then I would not object to a review of the protection at ANI and whether it remains necessary. I would abide by whatever that consensus may be.
                     — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
                    • I made a bad block once; another admin removed it, and I thanked them for doing so, because the expediency of undoing an errant administrative action outweighed the protocol of waiting to see how I would deal with it. We police each other; there's no one else to do it. With respect to the current infobox discussion, this is the hangover from a dispute that has been going on since 2007. It doesn't need to stretch on further. The discussion is dead, and the idea that a consensus will form in another week is certainly not something that would be suggested by the history of the matter. For the same reason, I have no intention of dragging this back to ANI, to be relitigated in another forum for another week. bd2412 T 04:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

(Initiated 11 days ago on 26 June 2015) AlbinoFerret 19:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Can I get an uninvolved administrator to look at this? bd2412 T 00:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Strange as it might seem, the more you post and show there is a heated controversy, the less likely you will find takers after only 9 days. AlbinoFerret 04:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
@AlbinoFerret: - where do you get "only 9 days" from? The discussion began at Talk:Hillary Clinton#Infobox and image captions on June 12, which is 23 days ago. It specifically says in the survey section that this is a continuation of the two previous discussions over the past month. bd2412 T 22:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
While discussions on the topic preceded the RFC, the RFC started on June 26th [3][4]. AlbinoFerret 12:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
@AlbinoFerret: - I am troubled by the implication that any editor can basically make any discussion drag on without end by merely creating a new section and rephrasing the question under discussion there as a new RfC. bd2412 T 20:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I have to take issue with BD2412's claim above: "The discussion is dead, and the idea that a consensus will form in another week is certainly not something that would be suggested by the history of the matter." That might be true if we measured consensus by counting votes; but we all know they're !votes, and we don't count them. So consensus must be measured by assessing and weighing the arguments. By that measure, I, for one, see consensus in that discussion. There is an (albeit undocumented) convention clearly and strongly supported implicitly by the community at large for reflecting the article title in the infobox heading, a convention adhered to by the vast majority of our articles, including this article since its inception. No good reason to start ignoring that convention now in this article has been presented. If there was little or no objection to making them different in some case, that would be one thing. But clearly in this case there is objection, so the convention should be followed. That's following consensus. --В²C 19:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

There's the problem with "undocumented" conventions in a nutshell. We have a status quo ante, and a rule that absent consensus for a change, the status quo ante should continue. We have a lengthy move discussion preceding the current dispute that argues all the points of Wikipedia:Article titles, but makes not one single mention of a change to the substance of the article. We have a roughly even split in the opinions expressed on the matter, with reasonable arguments being raised on both sides, and an absence of policy mandating a specific outcome. bd2412 T 20:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
What's the problem with undocumented conventions? Do we really have to document every convention? Are some conventions so obvious that no documentation is necessary? Isn't this one of them? I daresay this might be the first time it has ever even been challenged. The problem isn't the undocumented convention. The problem is the stubborn refusal of some to acknowledge it. --В²C 21:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
An undocumented, unacknowledged convention with many counter-examples isn't much of a convention. Jonathunder (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
With 5 million articles even .01% counter-examples are going to be "many", so having "many" counter-examples is not persuasive evidence against a convention. What you need to do is hit WP:RANDOM at least 10 times and see how often you do or don't get matching titles and info box headings (not including disambiguation and redoing hits without infoboxes). Here we go.
That's about as good as convention gets on Wikipedia. --В²C 22:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
@Born2cycle: - since you are of the opinion that a policy-based consensus has already been established, would you agree that it would be appropriate for an admin to close the discussion at this time? There is not going to be any great shift in participation, and the argument has already become circular and repetitive on both sides. bd2412 T 23:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Although I believe that that is the correct way to read consensus, in practice many don't seem to do that. Besides, the discussion is ongoing and I don't favor closing ongoing discussions. The normal time for an rfc is often a month, isn't it? --В²C 01:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The RM that led to the current dispute was opened on April 26 and closed on May 8, a total of 12 days. I can't imagine why it would take longer to settle the name in the infobox than the name in the article title. bd2412 T 02:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

--В²C 22:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC) The issue here is that somebody thought the article should be fully-protected for two freaking weeks. Lift the protection on a probationary basis; anybody who's aware of the contention and takes to edit warring, can quite simply be blocked for disruption. This is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit; it's not the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, unless two or three people can't keep their cool. Alakzi (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I don't see a problem with unlocking the article with the understanding that the infobox heading is to be left alone until this rfc is resolved. --В²C 16:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Ariana Grande#RfC: Grande "Diva" claims[edit]

Discussion has been open since May 29. Requesting closure. Chase (talk | contributions) 22:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done undid close to give a few more days. AlbinoFerret 12:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
This is an utterly underhand request for closure. The debate has been progressing 'today, with plenty left to say. That one of the involved parties is trying to censor further comment by requesting a close is a repellant step. AlbinoFerret, can I strongly advise that you "unclose" this asap. - SchroCat (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
While I didnt have to undo it, I have undone the close to give it a few more days. But to me it looks like its starting to become a rehash with every reply. AlbinoFerret 15:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
@SchroCat: I've had enough of your baseless accusations against me. The discussion has been open for longer than a month, which is generally when these can be closed, and the discussion is coming to a dead-end as AlbinoFerret pointed out. Chase (talk | contributions) 16:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Nothing baseless here. Your approach to this whole affair has been sub-optimal. - SchroCat (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Right. Would you care to make more accusations of me being a liar for generalizing the proposed text at the Grande RfC? Or being underhanded for requesting closure of an RfC that has gone on over a month when the consensus is quite clear? I'm done here and I suggest you don't clutter ANRFC with any more of your slander. You have been warned numerous times about making disputes personal, and if it continues I will be more than glad to take this to the appropriate venue. Chase (talk | contributions) 17:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Yawn.... Zzzzzzzz..... - SchroCat (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot requests#RfC: Remove persondata practical steps[edit]

Removal of wikipedia:persondata by bot: the RfC ran for 30 days, not sure what can be concluded at the end of it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: elevation of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle to guideline status[edit]

There are some suggestions further down the !vote sections for which an assessment would be welcome. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikidata#Edit in Wikidata links[edit]

Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus at this RfC – including whether there should be a follow-up RfC (and what should be discussed). (Initiated 34 days ago on 3 June 2015) - Evad37 [talk] 02:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)