Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Closure requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
2012
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#RFC: Names with diacritics and other non-ASCII letters: Should we permit, require, or prohibit ASCIIfied versions? (initiated 23 July 2012)? See also the comment at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#RfC closure: "Time to ask an uninvolved admin to close this RfC?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Closed as no consensus given the lack of closure for 2 months. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
This is an early solicitation for one or more uninvolved administrators, preferably three who would be willing to close collaboratively, to close Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage when its community feedback phase has ended (November 4th to 9th presently allocated for closing). Early indications are that there will likely be consensus in favor of its primary conclusion, which means administrative privileges will be needed to carry out indicated moves. Note that as a proposal to use voting mechanics as part of its closing procedures ended with no consensus, there is no contention that methods other than standard WP:NOTVOTE judgment of consensus should apply. As the previous RFC that this is a successor to had closing admins lined up very early, it would help improve confidence in the process if closing volunteers could be found as early as possible. Thanks for any help! —chaos5023 (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- If needed, I am available.--v/r - TP 18:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- If no-one else will do it I will be happy to close it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- We're now in the scheduled closing timeframe. I'll contact TParis via user talk. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- This has been
Done. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- This has been
- We're now in the scheduled closing timeframe. I'll contact TParis via user talk. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposed active editor notification requirement (initiated 10 October 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Help talk:Archiving a talk page#RFC on deprecating two archive methods (initiated 30 September 2012)? The question posed was: "Should the move method and permanent link method of talk page archiving be considered deprecated?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Done. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of shopping malls in the United States#What to do (initiated 13 September 2012)? The discussion is about the scope of the list. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Talk:CBS Records#RfC: Should this page remain the default DAB page? and Talk:CBS Records#Disambiguation page vs. CBS Records article
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:CBS Records#RfC: Should this page remain the default DAB page? and Talk:CBS Records#Disambiguation page vs. CBS Records article (initiated 14 September 2012 and 29 August 2012, respectively)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Phase one (initiated 4 October 2012)? A summary like Victor Yus (talk · contribs)'s at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/COI would be helpful to the community. Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think it's actually supposed to be closed; the results are used to formulate an actual proposal. --Rschen7754 04:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- There was a brief discussion of this isuse on the talk page, the general feeling was that a closing statement that reflected any kind of consensus was more or less impossible, and that the process is not yet complete, hence the simple "thanks for participating/welcome to phase two" message. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Is anything wanted here? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think. Armbrust The Homonculus 12:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- OK,
Not done then. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- OK,
- I don't think. Armbrust The Homonculus 12:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Is anything wanted here? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- There was a brief discussion of this isuse on the talk page, the general feeling was that a closing statement that reflected any kind of consensus was more or less impossible, and that the process is not yet complete, hence the simple "thanks for participating/welcome to phase two" message. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Lough Neagh#Basin Countries (initiated 13 September 2012)? Revisions have been reverted because as one editor put it, "Please wait for discussion to finish." Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 42#Dislocated ITN images (initiated 24 August 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- This one is Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kickstarter#RfC: Should this article contain a top-ten list, should that list include ongoing projects? (initiated 17 September 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Simplify the edit window (initiated 17 September 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Signatures#Simplifying signatures (initiated 30 August 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Needs an uninvolved person to review the discussion and close it, thanks. — raekyt 16:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 03:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Not sure (I'm an involved editor there) It would be appreciated if an uninvolved admin or editor with significant expertise in such areas could please objectively review this good faith closure and the various policy arguments put forward by editors from both sides of the discussion.
- I'd appreciate either the endorsement of the closure or the reopening of the discussion for subsequent closure by an uninvolved admin or editor with significant expertise in such areas.
- The reason for this (possibly unusual) request is that I believe there to be some cause for concern in the closing editors' evaluation of policy-based arguments in his RFC closes. (It may be helpful to have a fuller picture of the editor's interactions with others, but I'm not easily able to do so because their user talk archives appear to have been deleted: User talk:Atmoz/Archive 1, User talk:Atmoz/Archive 2 User talk:Atmoz/Archive 3, User talk:Atmoz/Archive 4).
- Thanks very much. -- Trevj (talk) 07:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Being an admin is not magic pixie dust (Also, WP:NFCC trumps WP:ILIKEIT.) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Disagree with closure. (Disclosure: I too am an involved editor.) There are several things wrong with the closure of this discussion:
- Placing the request on an administrator's notice board is a request for administrator's involvement in the process.
- WP:NFCC is in dispute. I am in the process of adding newfound evidence that shows that this image is in the public domain, which renders any NFCC arguments moot (I'll have that evidence posted on that page right after I finish writing this post).
- The closer cites only a single policy-based argument to keep the image (WP:CENSOR), yet there have been many presented. Further, aside from WP:NFCC there have been no policy-based arguments for excluding the image – indeed, the only other arguments presented for exclusion have been WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
- From the discussions on the closer's talk page, it is clear that similar issues come up repeatedly with respect to this editor's:
- premature closure of controversial RfCs,
- usurping the admin's role in doing so, even when one has been requested,
- failure to properly weigh policy-based arguments against WP:IDONTLIKEIT,
- failure to understand the issues and arguments involved in the controversy
- For all of these reasons, it is only appropriate for an administrator to be involved. Grollτech (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- If you close controversial discussions you will get complaints about it, what is difficult is separating the wheat from the chaff with those complaints.
- If you want the decision reviewed then perhaps a triumvirate review would be reasonable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with that process. How does one do that? By the way, I have added the discussion which I promised at Talk:Autopsy_images_of_Ngatikaura_Ngati#PublicDomain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grolltech (talk • contribs)
- Not commenting on the other aspects of the close, but 2 points seem to have been missed here regarding admins: 1) This page only requests an "uninvolved user", not an "uninvolved admin", and 2) WP:RfC#Ending RfCs is clear that any uninvolved user can close an RfC. I haven't investigated the rest of the claims, but the "this user wasn't an admin" claim is not valid. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with that process. How does one do that? By the way, I have added the discussion which I promised at Talk:Autopsy_images_of_Ngatikaura_Ngati#PublicDomain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grolltech (talk • contribs)
I've dropped a follow-up note on the closer's talk page, so we'll see if anything further comes from this. -- Trevj (talk) 08:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- There is of course also the existence of other stuff ("... Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group. 'So long as they are relevant to the article and do not violate any of Wikipedia's existing policies, nor the law of the US state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, no content or images will be removed because people find them objectionable or offensive.", Wikimedia Foundation spokesman Jay Walsh said "... Noncensorship is an important tenet of the user community and the edit community ...").
- This dichotomy makes the community appear hypocritical and makes a complete mockery of the relevant policies: we're evidently permitted to offend an entire group
withwhose members hold certain religious beliefs, but we're apparently disallowed from offendinga fewan unidentifiable number of people who we arbitrarily judge to be unable to view a photo of a beaten child's corpse. If you'll excuse my temporary incivility, what the fuck is Wikipedia all about? We're supposed to be here to build an encyclopedia. -- Trevj (talk) 09:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)- One might even go so far as to forward the proposition that there appear to have been multiple accidental misinterpretations of policies by various editors, with the genuine belief held by such editors opposing on NFCC#8 grounds (and even #5, had it been specifically mentioned) being that they're acting in the best interests of improving the encyclopedia. In the absence of any evidence of intent to act improperly, I'd assume good faith. But claiming that a relevant media file doesn't meet NFCC#8 could be classed as (unintentional) disruptive editing.
- A rationale of the non-free content criteria is
To facilitate the judicious use of non-free content to support the development of a high-quality encyclopedia
(emphasis added). Arguing the word of policy to defeat the principles of policy (if done wilfully in order to game the use of policies and guidelines) would be intentionally disruptive. We can use minimal non-free content if such use is justified by context, it adds to the encyclopedic value and it's been referred to in reliable sources. -- Trevj (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)- You made your case during the RfC - I don't think this is the right place to try and make it again. - Bilby (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for expressing your concern. I guess that's a very easy comment to make when a discussion's been closed in your favour. If there's obvious consensus that I've been commenting too much here, then I'll apologise and take note. In any case, for the moment I don't see what more I can add. Maybe I'll place {{uninvolved}} here in another 12 hours or so, if there've been no further significant developments. Over and out. -- Trevj (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- I have no opinion on way or another on whether or not the RfC should be reopened. My thought was only that in requesting it to be reopened, presenting your case on how you would like it to be closed is problematic, as I can only assume that the effect (presumably not intended) is to risk influencing the closer prior to reading the RfC. - Bilby (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for expressing your concern. I guess that's a very easy comment to make when a discussion's been closed in your favour. If there's obvious consensus that I've been commenting too much here, then I'll apologise and take note. In any case, for the moment I don't see what more I can add. Maybe I'll place {{uninvolved}} here in another 12 hours or so, if there've been no further significant developments. Over and out. -- Trevj (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- You made your case during the RfC - I don't think this is the right place to try and make it again. - Bilby (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, Nathan Johnson, for your tireless work in closing RfCs. Trevj, the requests for closure on this board have been primarily closed by non-admins in the past few weeks. Because this is a contentious discussion, it will likely take some time for three admins to volunteer their time to review this discussion.
A better option would be to have an "RfC close review" at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. See my proposed text of the process below. As I wrote at User talk:Cunard/Archive 9#Hi, your requests on AN, this was first done at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence following discussion at User talk:Mike Selinker/Archive9#Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory. If both Trevj and Nathan Johnson agree with this, then Trevje feel free to copy everything to WP:AN and write a nomination statement to overturn Nathan Johnson's close. Cunard (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Proposed text for RfC close review
| |
|---|---|
RfC close review: Talk:Autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati#RFC on image inclusionThis RfC close review should be closed seven days after the first timestamp: ~~~~~ Nathan Johnson (talk · contribs)'s closure of Talk:Autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati#RFC on image inclusion as exclude the image from the article was contested by Trevj (talk · contribs).
Nomination statementNomination statement by Trevj. DiscussionDiscussion by the community. |
Cunard (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your advice Cunard, and thanks (again) Nathan Johnson for closing the RfC. I'll give the above points some consideration, but am currently leaning towards waiting patiently for a triumvirate review (would this be admins with expertise, or non-admins with expertise)?
- My one request at this stage is that the image be (temporarily, in the case of an endorsement of the close) restored to filespace during either of the above scenarios (after it becomes procedurally deleted within the coming week). I'm not requesting that it be reincluded in the article in the case of an admin triumvirate review. But if we go with the whole community RfC close review then I think it would be appropriate to reinclude it there, as was the case during most of the RfC. If I receive assurances on these matters, then there will be no need for anyone to consider reincluding the image in order to temporarily remove the {{db-unfree}} tag and keep the image 'live'.
- Nathan Johnson hasn't edited since 4 November, so we'll see what he has to say on these matters. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 07:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I've been sick and am still not feeling well, in case this doesn't make much sense. I have no problem with my closure being reviewed, but there is no established place yet on Wikipedia to do so. There is presently another one on AN, though I don't see how this as an admin issue.
- RfC closures are simply an uninvolved user reading through the entire discussion and summarizing what they read. In this case, I firmly believe that there was a consensus to exclude the image from the article, but there certainly was no consensus to include the image. Any review, congruent with other review processes on Wikipedia, should not attempt to re-close or re-argue the RfC, but determine whether the RfC was closed in line with Wikipedia policy. How do those arguing that the RfC closure was invalid propose that the RfC should have been closed?
- I did notice when closing the RfC that it had a couple more days until the nominal 30 day period when the RfCbot removes the tag. After reading the discussion, I did not feel that a extra day or two would dramatically affect the outcome given that there was extensive discussion before the actual addition of the RfC tag as well as discussion at another venue (WP:NRF, which I mistakenly wrote as MfD in the closure). I view the above comment by Trevj that uninvolved user input at NRF that the image does not satisfy NFCC#8 to be in extremely bad taste. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 03:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think this mostly boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT on Trevj's part for the consensus, he's been one of the biggest pushers for inclusion of the image. As far as I know WP:CONSENSUS is the over-powering policy here. Consensus is pretty clear that the image should not be included, regardless of any policy rationale that could be stated why it COULD be included. I think a lot of it comes down to bad-taste to put an image of a naked tortured and murdered child in plain view. After reading the article it's not that difficult to find the image if the reader really wanted too, IMHO. — raekyt 13:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Nathan, for your reply. I hope you're recovering OK and will be feeling on top form soon. It appears that no admin (or other editor) feels suitably inclined to reopen your close, but you could always choose to do so yourself, after re-evaluation. Your belief
that there was a consensus to exclude the image from the article
is understood, although I'd expect an acknowledgement that the policy arguments for exclusion were very weak. And because you consider thatthere certainly was no consensus to include the image
, one proposal for an alternative closure could have been that of no consensus: there certainly was no consensus to exclude the image, either. I agree that another couple of days' discussion would have been unlikely to result in any changes in position by any of the participants. Regarding the NFCR, which precise comment of mine are you referring to which you view to bein extremely bad taste
? (I'm confused as to whether you're referring to this page or the NFCR one.) - Thanks Raeky, for your reply. If being
one of the biggest pushers for inclusion
can exist as a definition of someone who has offered compromises (which were largely ignored by others), has reincluded after POINTy NFCC#10a removals, has stated a case for inclusion based on encyclopedic merits and did not move the image back up to the lead, then I could almost begin to agree with you. I'm not sure that it can sensibly coexist. I referred in some detail to consensus during the discussion, and don't see the point of elaborating further here. The fact that you consider itbad-taste to put an image of a naked tortured and murdered child in plain view
does not make the inclusion of the image unencyclopedic; it's a subjective opinion, which you're entitled to express, but it's got nothing to do with policy. - -- Trevj (talk) 07:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone can be reasonably expected to review their own work. If no-one is prepared to review the closure then the closure should stand. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Funny, admins sometimes review/amend their own closes of AfDs before/instead of having an editor taking to deletion review. -- Trevj (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone can be reasonably expected to review their own work. If no-one is prepared to review the closure then the closure should stand. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Nathan, for your reply. I hope you're recovering OK and will be feeling on top form soon. It appears that no admin (or other editor) feels suitably inclined to reopen your close, but you could always choose to do so yourself, after re-evaluation. Your belief
- I think this mostly boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT on Trevj's part for the consensus, he's been one of the biggest pushers for inclusion of the image. As far as I know WP:CONSENSUS is the over-powering policy here. Consensus is pretty clear that the image should not be included, regardless of any policy rationale that could be stated why it COULD be included. I think a lot of it comes down to bad-taste to put an image of a naked tortured and murdered child in plain view. After reading the article it's not that difficult to find the image if the reader really wanted too, IMHO. — raekyt 13:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- I did notice when closing the RfC that it had a couple more days until the nominal 30 day period when the RfCbot removes the tag. After reading the discussion, I did not feel that a extra day or two would dramatically affect the outcome given that there was extensive discussion before the actual addition of the RfC tag as well as discussion at another venue (WP:NRF, which I mistakenly wrote as MfD in the closure). I view the above comment by Trevj that uninvolved user input at NRF that the image does not satisfy NFCC#8 to be in extremely bad taste. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 03:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
While they might do that, I don't think you can reasonably expect, or ask, a closer to do such a thing. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- This is basically starting to turn into a WP:FORUMSHOP on your part Trevj, specifically if you take it to ANI... but be prepared ANI can backfire. — raekyt 18:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments and advice. Regarding the review of AfD closes, I thought that people were encouraged to question the closer before taking to deletion review. Now, I'm not suggesting that situations such as this arise frequently, or are how we should aspire to work... but they do still occur from time to time. As for ANI, did I indicate that's what I've been considering? I don't think so, because it's not. I'm waiting for Nathan's further consideration/comments, at his convenience. Aside from a little outburst of mine here last week, I thought I'd just been replying to points raised here by others. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- "I thought that people were encouraged to question the closer before taking to deletion review." You are correct. It is good practice to ask closers to reconsider their decisions before escalating to a review forum. Not consulting the closer would be in poor paste.
Nathan has reconsidered his close at 03:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC) and decided against amending it. I think your only recourse at this moment is to open an RfC close review at WP:AN. I disagree with Raeky that this would be forumshopping. No one here has affirmed Nathan's close because no one has wanted to wade into this contentious issue and make a unilateral decision to endorse or overturn it. A community review at AN will attract more input because it will not put the decision into the hands of a single user and will reach a timely decision to endorse or overturn Nathan's close. Cunard (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Largely agreed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- I already said I was fine with the close being reviewed. I was asked to review the close, and I still maintain that the consensus was to exclude the image. I've lost interest in this a long time ago. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- "I thought that people were encouraged to question the closer before taking to deletion review." You are correct. It is good practice to ask closers to reconsider their decisions before escalating to a review forum. Not consulting the closer would be in poor paste.
- Thanks for the comments and advice. Regarding the review of AfD closes, I thought that people were encouraged to question the closer before taking to deletion review. Now, I'm not suggesting that situations such as this arise frequently, or are how we should aspire to work... but they do still occur from time to time. As for ANI, did I indicate that's what I've been considering? I don't think so, because it's not. I'm waiting for Nathan's further consideration/comments, at his convenience. Aside from a little outburst of mine here last week, I thought I'd just been replying to points raised here by others. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much to all who've taken the time to read/comment here. As far as I'm concerned, it seems to be OK for this to be archived now. I've collated a few points at User talk:Trevj#Contentious images (possibly non-free) for anyone who's interested. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pi Kappa Alpha#Request for Comment: Butt-chugging incident (initiated 28 September 2012)? The discussion is about whether to include the "butt-chugging incident". Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Ks0stm (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Armbrust The Homonculus 13:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Requesting closure of this dated discussion from an uninvolved editor. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Gigs (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homonculus 13:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Requesting closure of this dated discussion from an uninvolved editor. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Gigs (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homonculus 13:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nick Drake#Request for comment (initiated 11 October 2012)? The discussion is about whether to retain or remove the infobox. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
This has been open much longer than most ban proposals and should probably be closed now. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- As it is behavioural do we need an admin closure here? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. WP:CBAN specifically says "administrator." Of course, if certain editors would follow up on a month old [1] hint there would be more admins available to do such closes. NE Ent 14:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- I thought I was being nominated, and then I couldn't start it until November as I was away for a couple of weekends. I'll look at it this week. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. WP:CBAN specifically says "administrator." Of course, if certain editors would follow up on a month old [1] hint there would be more admins available to do such closes. NE Ent 14:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by 28bytes (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Armbrust The Homonculus 09:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Civility#Gravedancing (initiated 12 October 2012)? The question posed was: Should a link to gravedancing be included in Template:Civility? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
This RFC was closed by a bot, but since the discussion really doesn't seem to have changed any minds, I'd like to have an uninvolved admin assess the consensus, if one exists. Thanks. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alben W. Barkley#RFC (initiated 12 October 2012)? The questions posed were: "Is the recent rewrite too long and/or too detailed, and does it contain too many footnotes?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Requesting closure of this dated discussion from an uninvolved editor. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Requesting closure of this dated discussion from an uninvolved editor. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ray of Light#RfC: Ray of Light album sales worldwide (initiated 7 October 2012)? The question posed was: "What should we say about the worldwide sales figures for Madonna's Ray of Light album?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Honeywell Turbo Technologies#Biased promotional contents?? (initiated 10 October 2012)? The opening poster wrote:
In the encyclopedic entry, I don't think there's legitimate need to have a list that selectively show cases the company in a positive light by listing out a fair number of vehicles that performed well in races on mere fact they happened to use Garrett Honeywell components. I think it adds excessive promotional bias while adding very little encyclopedic values. In my opinion, there's excess contents about company's positive high lights and product details that should stay in company's own page or materials for prospective shareholders to read. Please comment
Cunard (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved editor assess the consensus at Talk:Comparisons of life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions#RfC: Lack of Agreement on Sovacool Study (initiated 9 October 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Snow close. Apteva (talk) 06:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2012 November 3#Event winners at the 2012 Summer Paralympics? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Uninvolved editor requesting that someone assess this almost month-old CfD. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 07:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Fayenatic london (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Armbrust The Homonculus 08:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:War on Women#RfC - Scope of Article (initiated 2 September 2012)? The question posed was: "Yes or No, is the scope of the War on Women successfully defined by this article's opening sentence?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 35#Misuse of primary sources (initiated 1 September 2012)? Is the consensus for or against amending the "Misuse of primary sources" section to exclude prohibitions on the usage of judgements and press releases of international courts? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. This RfC is about 2 months old. The bot removed the RfC tag, and the talk page archiver put the discussion in the archives. But we still need an uninvolved editor to assess the discussion and close it. See also this discussion from today about requesting the closure. --Noleander (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Done in the archive as no consensus. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think that there was consensus (based on the merits of the arguments). The addition of the footnote to that guideline is a vast improvement. Granted, a single editor objected, but following their suggestion would leave the guideline in an ambiguous and misleading state. To be clear: I have no opinion on how NFCI#1 should be interpreted, but the guideline should state what the WP policy is, one way or another. I've asked another editor to review this closure. --Noleander (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- The statement by the closing editor reads: "Closing as no consensus. I can't see any consensus has developed here. I don't see the point in de-archiving the section as that seems pretty obvious to all the participants." That seems very skimpy. It is customary in closing statements to review the various viewpoints, to assess the arguments vis-a-vis WP policies, and to do an informal !vote count. That is all missing. But the more important point is, I repeat, that WP:NFCI #1 is very misleading & ambiguous: whatever the WP policy is on NFCI#1 (and I think the RfC discussion makes it clear what the policy is) NFCI#1 should be improved to capture that policy. --Noleander (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- A new RfC on this topic has been opened anew at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#RfC:_Can_cover_art_can_be_used_within_articles_on_authors.2Fbands.3F. So, no need for further comment here within WP:AN. --Noleander (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- The statement by the closing editor reads: "Closing as no consensus. I can't see any consensus has developed here. I don't see the point in de-archiving the section as that seems pretty obvious to all the participants." That seems very skimpy. It is customary in closing statements to review the various viewpoints, to assess the arguments vis-a-vis WP policies, and to do an informal !vote count. That is all missing. But the more important point is, I repeat, that WP:NFCI #1 is very misleading & ambiguous: whatever the WP policy is on NFCI#1 (and I think the RfC discussion makes it clear what the policy is) NFCI#1 should be improved to capture that policy. --Noleander (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think that there was consensus (based on the merits of the arguments). The addition of the footnote to that guideline is a vast improvement. Granted, a single editor objected, but following their suggestion would leave the guideline in an ambiguous and misleading state. To be clear: I have no opinion on how NFCI#1 should be interpreted, but the guideline should state what the WP policy is, one way or another. I've asked another editor to review this closure. --Noleander (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Skyfall#RfC: the position of a character's wikilink (initiated 30 October 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Seafood#Naming seafood articles (initiated 26 September 2012)? The question posed was: "Talk:Seafood#RfC: Is seafood a subset of cuisine?" Please review the entire thread beginning from Talk:Seafood#Naming seafood articles and consider enclosing the entire discussion in archive templates when closing the debate. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
This is a six year old RM, a bit old to request a move review, and is made moot by re-opening an RM. It can be procedurally closed. Apteva (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by George Ho (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homonculus 15:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Can an admin make a decision here? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Great. Now it's archived. No response or decision made from an admin. No one even bothered to close the thread. What kind of service is this? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- The kind that nobody gets paid for doing. Tip your admin next time. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Done I went into the archive and gave it th e formal closing it deserved.[2] Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- The kind that nobody gets paid for doing. Tip your admin next time. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
The discussion appears to have self closed early and amicably. That's a good thing. So why this request? Because it seems to be necessary with this article to make formal closure of this topic which was, certainly prior to the RfC, hotly contested. It has been closed informally, but the editor who did so was involved in the discussion, so a formal closure would set it in stone insofar as any Wikipedia closure sets matters in stone. This is, or ought to be, a swift use of a totally uninvolved editor's pencil. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Done. →Σσς. (Sigma) 22:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
A brave soul is needed to clear up this train wreck. The MfD has been open for 19 days, and the ratio of argument to bickering has steadily decreased. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Done The result was userfy. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Has been open long enough. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Can I reinforce the plea to close this? It is now just a magnet for non-constructive contributions. I'd close it myself but expressed an opinion earlier. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 08:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- No consensus to close here - really need better forum for this. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 06:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- The thread has run a long time, many editors have commented, and the recent discussion has become repetitive and redundant. It's time to close. NE Ent 14:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- No consensus to close here - really need better forum for this. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 06:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by 28bytes (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Armbrust The Homonculus 00:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Request for comment (former) (initiated 26 September 2012)? The question posed was: "are WikiProject Birds' capitalization rules okay or do they violate certain policies and guidelines?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Closed Apteva (talk) 03:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The RfC expired its 30 day limit without formal closure and without clear consensus.--129.22.167.83 (talk) 09:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think I can close this as I have a strong opinion - it was started on 12 September. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- I have no opinion on the issue but would close it as no consensus. The MOS folks would not view a non-admin closure very kindly though. I would also ask that the question be more clearly stated, and addressed at specific articles before attempting to summarize in the MOS. My copy of New Hart's Rules (a style guide, and not "our style guide"), simply says to follow a trademark with TM to make sure that recognition is given that it is a trademark. Apteva (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Nouniquenames (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homonculus 12:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Richard Tylman#RfC: Should information sourced to research in genealogical websites be included? (initiated 18 September 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_132#Genealogy_databases should be considered at the closure. Armbrust The Homonculus 09:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) Armbrust The Homonculus 17:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Marvel Studios#Distributor for The Avengers (initiated 13 March 2012, see the RfC at Talk:Marvel Studios#Request for comment that was initiated 12 October 2012)? Please review the entire thread beginning from Talk:Marvel Studios#Distributor for The Avengers and consider enclosing the entire discussion in archive templates when closing the debate. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
A merge that was proposed in 2007; it was never resolved or closed. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Closed as closed. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/City population templates (initiated 16 September 2012)? The questions posed were:
1. Does a largest cities template/city population template add value to the articles (esp. featured ones) about nations?
2. If your answer is "yes" to the question above, should such a template contain images of top 2-4 cities in them?
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- The RFC wasn't closed, only placed between {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}. There is no closing statement. Armbrust The Homonculus 09:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Summary added. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Douglas Tait (stuntman)#RfC Biography posting (initiated 27 September 2012)? The discussion is about whether the material removed in this edit should be restored. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Consensus to move the article to "Great Recession" after a long debate. Requesting someone to close the discussion and move the article. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- You really shouldn't be pre-empting the outcome. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Moved to premature requests. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Moved it back. Armbrust The Homonculus 09:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Moved to premature requests. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Discussion is still ongoing, and there is no consensus yet. Archive this and bring it back when the discussion has wound down? NW (Talk) 22:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Or move it back to premature requests. Armbrust The Homonculus 22:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Closed. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2012 (CUT)
- Not anymore, as you closure violated WP:RMNAC, which says that non-administrator shouldn't close RM discussion if history swap is necessary. In this case Great Recession has an extensive history, which needs to be swapped with the history of 2008–2012 global recession. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Re-closed. I simply closed the thread. An admin can merge the history if xe feels it's necessary. WP:BURO. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Why did you close the thread? Either move it or don't move it. But to silence discussion and just walk off doesn't seem particularly useful.Walrasiad (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, you really should not close a discussion as "move" if you can't actually move the article, but I've moved the article accordingly. -- tariqabjotu 06:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Why did you close the thread? Either move it or don't move it. But to silence discussion and just walk off doesn't seem particularly useful.Walrasiad (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Re-closed. I simply closed the thread. An admin can merge the history if xe feels it's necessary. WP:BURO. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Not anymore, as you closure violated WP:RMNAC, which says that non-administrator shouldn't close RM discussion if history swap is necessary. In this case Great Recession has an extensive history, which needs to be swapped with the history of 2008–2012 global recession. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations#Request for Comment: Notability of TV station subchannel articles (initiated 26 September 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Would like this RfC to closed or some instruction on how to proceed. The RfC had vary few editors waying in one way or the other. It has about the same number as a previous discussion that an administrator declared to have a "weak consensus" that WikiProject Television Stations has been force to repeatedly flog by a single editor. So if this isn't more than "weak consensus" can the responding administrator give us some direction (besides starting the discussion over) on what to do. Spshu (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Coren (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 21:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:File mover#Guideline status for the What files should be renamed section (initiated 24 September 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Closed to Coren (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 21:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lego#Request for comment on creating omnibus articles for sets and themes
Unfortunately particpation was fairly light. Woild like an uninvolved closer as this would effect 60+ articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Goodraise (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homunculus 12:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Requesting that an uninvolved editor close this RfC about whether to include allegations of involvement in child abuse (indirectly related to the Jimmy Savile situation). The article is not a BLP; the subject died in 1967. The disputed section is currently included here. I have already archived the RfC and summed up who supports and opposes, but we need an uninvolved editor to determine consensus. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Vanisaac (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homunculus 12:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Can an admin close this please. Mtking (edits) 08:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Done Closed as no national flags, as per MOS:FLAG, unless a competition is organized along nationalities. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 10:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if there is an agreement already; it's been one week since the last post. --George Ho (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think there is enough participation to consider it a formal close, but there does appear to be agreement, and so I have implemented one of the proposed edits. Monty845 20:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
MFD has been open since 28 Nov. Multiple declined AfC pages bundled together. Very little to no activity despite age. --Nouniquenames 22:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Someone has now closed it. --Surturz (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
We need a third party to review the comments here and decide if consensus has been reached. This is in regards to proposed changes for Template:Infobox_soap_character which is why I wasn't sure if it belongs up in the Wikipedia namespace section. Other subsections in this conversation have been "closed" by myself, simply for organizational purposes of seeing what is currently left to discuss; any can be "unclosed" if in error. However, the "Romances" section is the section of request here. Thank you! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Just wanted to add the link to a recent but prior related discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Soap_Operas#Removal_of_.22Romances.22_on_template. I do believe myself that the requested discussion has reached rough consensus, but if someone has the time to take a look that would still be helpful to have an unbiased opinion. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Done Closed as Remove romances parameter, but retain information in article body. Treatment for unmarried characters may require follow-up discussion. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 15:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Both myself and the other certifying user would like this RfC/U closed.[3] Admin User:Kim_Dent-Brown has issued a block to the user in question. In my opinion the consensus on the talkpage is also that the RfC/U be closed. Could an uninvolved admin please close this RfC/U. Thanks. --Surturz (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Hasteur (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homunculus 14:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
- Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Political activities of the Koch brothers#RFC: Inclusion of material about Fred Koch's politics and influence on this sons (initiated 16 November 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Closed. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alistair McAlpine, Baron McAlpine of West Green#RfC: Include or not include a reference to the allegations, McAlpine's denial and the BBC apology (initiated 10 November 2012). The question posed was: "should the article contain the false allegations of child abuse"? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Bidisha#Conflict of Interest (initiated 18 October 2012)? The opening poster wrote: "Every time the subject's surname is included, it is edited out, with different reasons being given in the page history." The question the RfC posed was: Should the article include the subject's surname? When close the RfC, please consider moving the comment by Totorotroll (talk · contribs) at the page's top to a suitable position within the discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Closed. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:James Earl Jones#RfC: Should Darth Vader be mentioned in the lead of James Earl Jones? (initiated 7 November 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Colombian conflict (1964–present)#Requested move (initiated 18 October 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Winter Storm Athena#RfC on the validity of names given by TWC (initiated 10 November 2012)? Please also consider the earlier discussion Talk:Winter Storm Athena#Proposed name change to November 6–8, 2012 nor'easter in your close. Please consider making the newer discussion a subsection of the older discussion and enclose both in close templates to demonstrate to the RfC participants that you have read both discussions. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Closed. Read both discussions and the AfD, but didn't enclose it in the archive template. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Vulva#Urination (initiated 23 October 2012)? The question posed was: "Should a section be created dealing with urination." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Closed. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Love#Edit request on 12 July 2012 (initiated 23 October 2012; see Talk:Love#RFC). The opening post was: "Delete 'People with histrionic personality disorder and narcissism may have a limited or minimal capability for experiencing love' as per discussion above." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Closed. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Meningitis#Recent news (initiated 5 October 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Closed. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:The Abbey Road Sessions (Kylie Minogue album)#Remix, studio, compilation or orchestral album? (initiated 11 November 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, 2012#What is the scope? (initiated 8 November 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:John Cassian#Nationality (initiated 18 October 2012)? There is disagreement about what John Cassian's nationality is. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- A crapload of OR is what that was. Closed. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Lew Ford#RfC: Should this sentence be included. (initiated 31 October 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Done Closed as consensus to include. --Nouniquenames 20:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Requesting closure of this dated merge discussion that was initiated in early September 2012. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Requesting closure of this dated merge discussion that was initiated in July 2012. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at the RfC at Wikipedia 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)
- Closed. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia: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. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 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 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts#RFC on WP:MMA's use of Flag Icons in relation to MOS:FLAG or Wikipedia 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". VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 07:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- You seem to take issue with ordered lists ("numbered votes") as opposed to unordered (bulleted) lists. This seems kind of silly and irrelevant. When you look at other RFCs such as RFC/Biographies of living people or RFC/Paid editing, it's common practice to use an ordered (read: numbered) list. Enumeration can be helpful. Do you see a substantial difference between this RFC and the two just cited (BLP + PE)? Would you say that all three don't meet your standards?
- Regarding discussion, anyone was free to discuss the issue in their own view, in another's view, on the talk page, or elsewhere (and many people did). I'm still at a loss as to what your actual objection is. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think there are definitely discussions where numbered votes are highly appropriate. My experience is that these tend to come in the form of open-ended questions (eg, how to handle paid editing) rather than in the form of binary questions (eg, should we have ticker symbols in company article ledes). The aspect of preference vs. policy also comes into play: an RfC that is fundamentally about editor preferences instead of application of policies and guidelines will lend itself to a limited number of views that can get a simple "I support" from dozens of editors.
- In other words, if a position in an RfC is primarily in the form of "these are all the reasons why I believe we should (or shouldn't) do X", a threaded discussion is going to be more fruitful - it will bring out the policy interpretations that can inform the community moving forward; while an RfC where the discussion will primarily be in the form of "based on this precedent (or the lack of precedent), I believe we should do X, Y, Z, A, B, C, D, and Q", then numbered voting can be more likely to bring a larger segment of the community into the conversation, and still be accurate and informative of community attitude. Is that a coherent and cogent perspective? VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 10:59, 16 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". VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 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)
- 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 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts#RFC on WP:MMA's use of Flag Icons in relation to MOS:FLAG or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas#Romances in which there was actual boldface voting. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with MZMcBride that the format for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ticker symbols in article leads is standard for RfCs. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012 for an RfC that used the same format.
When participants add qualifiers to their endorsements, it makes the closer's job harder. But it's no different for RfCs that are structured differently.
Some of the participants did not elaborate on why they supported a position, though that also happens in RfCs with different formats. These users' opinions can be given less weight than those who provided rationales for their positions.
I found plenty of discussion on the page (particularly under #20 for MZMcBride's view, #1 for UnitedStatesian's view, and #1 for Philosopher's view).
In my opinion, this is a valid RfC. Cunard (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Closed. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)#Request for comment for Notability (geographic features) to become a Wikipedia guideline page (initiated 15 October 2012; relisted 15 November 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- The discussion resulted in a stable and consensual version of the page, so I have marked the page as a guideline and closed the RfC. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC complicated articles (initiated 12 November 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Closed. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Obligatory short definition section (initiated 16 October 2012 )? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive242#Richard Tylman and the case of the uncloseable RFC per the comment at 16:45, 8 December 2012 by BarkingFish (talk · contribs). This was an RfC close review. The closer should determine whether there is a consensus to overturn the RfC close. Because the discussion has been archived, there are two methods to implement the close: (i) Move the discussion back to the talk page and close it and (ii) Close the discussion, keeping it in the talk page archive, and announce the result on the talk page. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I added a summary of the ANI discussion to the original RFC.[4] If anyone doesn't think that's enough, ping me. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, Nathan. This looks good. Cunard (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an Administrator assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paul Bedson? This RfC/U was opened 12 days ago, which is not all that long; however, discussion has slowed, and the editor in question is continuing to edit. Several users, myself included, believe that at a minimum a topic ban is needed. Given that the commenters at the RfC/U are practically unanimous, if the RfC/U is to remain open I think it would be best if Paul Bedson were asked to cease editing in article space till it can be formally closed. (I rarely post here, so if I shouldn't be advocating a position on the close in this section, let me know and I'll strike the comment.) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox model#Discussion to add blood type to infobox model to get infobox at parity with other countries (initiated 3 November 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Closed. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Slaughter and May#RfC: Mention of redundancies (initiated 16 October 2012)? The question posed was: "[Should] the following text be added to the History section of the article: 'In October 2012 Slaughter and May announced that it would be making 28 of its 165 London-based secretarial staff redundant, citing technological change'"? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Three Kingdoms#Sinocentrism (China-centrism) and potential anti-British-Isles bias? (initiated 15 October 2012)? The RfC revolves around disagreement about the article's scope. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Istanbul#RfC: Infobox collage (initiated 9 November 2012)? The RfC is about which collage should be used in the article. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Closed. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Dick Grayson#Character name - Again (initiated 14 August 2012; see Talk:Dick Grayson#Request for comment (initiated 4 November 2012))? Please consider enclosing the entire discussion in close templates to demonstrate to RfC participants that you have read the entire discussion beginning at Talk:Dick Grayson#Character name - Again. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Closed as full name (with nickname) in lead, as per MOS:LEADALT; no consensus for infobox. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 01:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SchuminWeb. Armbrust The Homunculus 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(Talk) 07:35, 10 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)
- The last three nominations were closed by IronGargoyle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and X! (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 12:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:User pages#New policy/guideline proposal (initiated 19 October 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Policy list#Five pillars (initiated 14 November 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)ar
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Aneurin Bevan#'Free at the point of need for all Britons' (initiated 8 November 2012)? The RfC was about the phrase mentioned in the section's name. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Another one I don't think needs a summary. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Done. Silly dispute, no RfC needed, defer to normal editing guidelines. Guy (Help!) 23:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
No input for over a week in a widely participated discussion. Honestly, the consensus is clear, but it would be nice to get a formal close so we can get on with things. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nouniquenames (talk • contribs) 14:47, 24 December 2012
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats#Appealing decisions to (not) resysop (initiated 12 November 2012) and implement any changes to the policy (if any)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have closed this. Spartaz Humbug! 11:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#RfC: Intractable conflicts of interest (initiated 31 October 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
We need someone to close this: the dispute is ongoing and I think there's enough opinions for an admin to decide on the issue, which in itself is relatively simple: to include or not include a conviction for animal cruelty in the BLP of a musician. Thanks for your quick attention! Drmies (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 11:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an administrator please close the requested move and move the talk page to the requested location? The article was moved during the rm, and the consensus is in favor of that move, but the talk page has a different title than the article and, for some reason, I was unable to move the talk page. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 15:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by BDD (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homunculus 11:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
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 The Homonculus 22:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist)#Request for comment (initiated 6 October 2012)? Please also consider Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist)#Fountain of Youth, which discusses the same topic. When closing the discussion consider making one section (perhaps the newer one) a subsection of the other one and enclose the entire discussion in archive templates. This ensures that RfC participants are aware that you considered both discussions in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Houla massacre#Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung as a source (initiated 26 October 2012)? The opening poster wrote: "I have requested outside commentary on whether we should include any reference to the FAZ story and associated sources in this article." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2012 Italian shooting in the Arabian Sea#Neutrality disputed: is this article too pro-Indian biased, too pro-Italian or neutral enough? (initiated 17 November 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Executive Order 9066#How many non-Japanese were interned? (initiated 1 November 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Ubuntu (operating system)#Ubuntu as "Adware" (initiated 20 October 2012)? The opening poster wrote: "I object to the use of the phrase 'Ubuntu is a form of adware'." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Haibun#RfC: Should 2 external links be kept or removed? (initiated 19 October 2012)? Please consider the discussion at Talk:Haibun#Removal of external links and make one section (perhaps the newer one) a subsection of the older one and enclose the entire discussion with closing templates to demonstrate that you have read both sections. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Done Not a lot of participation. Closed against inclusion, but without prejudice due to lack of turnout. --Nouniquenames 05:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Ian Jackson#dpkg Authorship (initiated 3 October 2012)? Please make sure to consider Talk:Ian Jackson#Older Discussion in your close as well, since the RfC began in that section before it was separated. Please consider combining the two sections (perhaps making the first a subsection of the second) when closing the discussion. The RfC's opening poster wrote: "chiark does not host MindTerm." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Done. →Σσς. (Sigma) 21:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Killing of Henry Marrow#Should the description of Marrow's murder name his killers? Request for comment and BLP problems. (initiated 8 November 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Francis Bacon (artist)#RFC: How should Bacon's nationality be described? (initiated 8 November 2012)? Please be sure to consider the related discussion at Talk:Francis Bacon (artist)#"Irish born British". Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Smithfield Foods#RfC: General Article Help and Vertical Integration section (initiated 25 October 2012)? Initiated by an employee of the company, the RfC seems to be about how the the article's "Vertical Integration" section should be modified. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Optical Express#RfC: Is the gripe site section undue weight? (initiated 10 November 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Drone attacks in Pakistan#RFC: Is speculation by an unnamed official without any secondary sources encyclopedic material? (initiated 19 November 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Windows Server 2012#Color guide in editions table (initiated 31 October 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RidjalA (initiated 3 November 2012)? After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Electronic toll collection#Merging separate ETC system articles together (initiated 14 October 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Howden Joinery#Request for Comments (initiated 9 November 2012)? The opening poster wrote: "I don't have the time or interest to follow up on this, but it seems to me that this edit and similar earlier edits suppress valuable information on the history of this business." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of official languages by state#Rfc (initiated 29 October 2012)? The question posed was:
Somaliland is listed on this wikipedia page under the Partially recognised states heading. However, unlike the cited states, it has no recognition as an independent state and is instead internationally recognised as an autonomous region of Somalia. Given this, would it be more accurate to list the territory under a new, separate sub-heading titled Unrecognised territories or some variation thereof?
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Astroturfing#RFC (initiated 12 November 2012)? The RfC is about which of two versions of the article is preferred. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Michael Crichton#RfC on treatment of mainstream view on climate change (initiated 28 October 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I closed it, though I think the editors have moved on, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
ResolvedAt least one experienced editor will be needed soon to close this (preferably someone with no previous involvement in fringe-related issues). The RfC opened on November 30, though people are still commenting. I'd like to draw attention to two issues. First, some editors opened subsections with new RfC questions, and others have added support or oppose to those sections, whereas a few of them may (or may not) have intended to add their comments to the main RfC section. Second, I have a BLP concern about part of the RfC proposal that I've explained here. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Srich32977 (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homunculus 03:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)===Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 December 4#Pro-Islamic===
This discussion began about a month and a half ago, and was relisted over three weeks ago. An admin will have to judge if there's consensus, but with over two weeks of silence, it's time for a close one way or another. --BDD (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Armbrust The Homunculus 11:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
This disruptive proposal got little support, but degenerated into a discussion about a moratorium on such discussions. No consensus in sight, it's eating up 20 lines of TOC and 75% of the page at WP:VPP, and needs to be put away as long dead. Dicklyon (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Jeepday (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 11:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)