Wikipedia:Closure requests: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:41, 7 June 2012

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

Shortcuts

Archives

1, 2

Requests for closure

RFC at Talk:Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand#RFC on reversion of merge

Would an uninvolved admin please close and summarize the RFC at Talk:Extrinsic_extensor_muscles_of_the_hand#RFC_on_reversion_of_merge?--Taylornate (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Ban April Fools pranks

Would an admin close and summarize Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Ban April Fools pranks? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was archived to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_88#Ban_April_Fools_pranks. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII}_{The Undertaker 20–0} 12:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I had a look at this, and I can't find any consensus for doing anything. Although there is certainly substantial community disapproval of disruption, especially in articlespace, there is no agreement on what that means or what to do about preventing it. Personally, I would suggest Wikipedia:Department of Fun be tasked with collaborating on pranks in advance, so that we don't get such a proliferation of "hey, wouldn't this be funny" individual acts. However, even if stressing that such collaboration didn't amount to requiring Department of Fun approval, I'm sure some would say that this would be WP:BUREAUCRACY and kill the fun. Rd232 ^talk 16:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like someone to look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Agent00f; there is a "view" subscribed to by a large enough number of editors at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Agent00f#View_by_Drmies and a move to close at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Agent00f#Move_to_close. Editor in question has had ample opportunity to show a dedication to cease disruptive editing (in this case, filibustering and stalling) and has not seized that opportunity. This has been running since 12 May. Thank you in advance. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(below comments merged from a duplicate request) – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 06:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from later on this board. JJB 19:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

After attempting multiple times to get some sort of acknowledgment of the issues at hand we see a widining circle of disruption on multiple pages (Now at WP:SPI) therefore I request an uninvolved admin to step in and close down the soapbox. In no way am I advocating for any action to be taken in response to the contents of the RfC/U. I am simply asking for the closure as it is obvious to me that there will be no negotiated agreement between the certifiers and the respondant. Hasteur (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a duplicate of the request above. What's the appropriate action here? Strike, remove, leave it here? – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 06:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, I'll just merge them together. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 06:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Deaths in 2012

An RfC concerning reference style that was opened on April 12. Danger! ^{High voltage!} 22:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#Site xuarez.comoj.com and other requests

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist has a severe backlog; the oldest entries date from January. Would an admin (or admins) review:

After reviewing an entry, please post a comment on the requester's talk page because the requester may no longer be watching the page after such a lengthy period of time. MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist/Indicators may be useful. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Taipei#RFC on Taiwan/Republic of China

I imagine this is a fairly clear-cut 'no consensus' result, but it would be helpful for an uninvolved administrator to rubber-stamp this expired and de-listed RFC. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 05:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#Archiving talk pages

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#Archiving talk pages? The RfC is listed at Template:Centralized discussion and no discussion has occurred since 18 May 2012. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:User pages#Request for comment - Advertising on user pages

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:User pages#Request for comment - Advertising on user pages? The RfC was listed and archived from Template:Centralized discussion and the last comment was on 20 May 2012. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/COI

Would an admin summarize the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/COI? The discussion was listed at Template:Centralized discussion; the last comment was on 13 May 2012. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice

Would an admin close Wikipedia talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice and provide guidance about how a subsequent RfC would be better focused? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:MakeSense64/Tennis names#RfC: Can a wikiproject require no-diacritics names.2C based on an organisation.27s rule or commonness in English press.3F

This RfC has remained open for months. Would an uninvolved admin please close and summarize the discussion. Thanks. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:User pages#May sanctions that are actively in effect be removed from a user talk page

Requesting close, RFC tag expired, would an uninvolved editor or admin please summarize the discussion? Monty ₈₄₅ 04:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Summary_style#RfC: Should the summary style guideline quote WP:Notability and if so in what place

Could some admin please summarize this and preferable choose one of the options rather than leaving it to go on to another long dispute. There is a request below it to update the page with one of the options but with the proposer saying they will dispute what they are proposing! I am happy with that if it is a definite decision of the RfC rather than a basis for further dispute. The RfC hasn't been touched for the last day and doesn't seem to be attracting contribution so if you'd like to contribute instead please do. The page will be unprotected tomorrow and I fear if some definite decision isn't reached it will be back to what led to that. Dmcq (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at IPCOLL concerning insertion of mandatory, formulaic, boilerplate text

Can an uninvolved administrator please close this discussion at IPCOLL and render a decision that respects the majority consensus. The advanced proposal seeks to eliminate mandatory, formulaic, boilerplate text currently inserted into some 200 articles. After a lengthy debate, 22 editors voted in favor of the proposal to remove the boilerplate text while 19 opposed. A decision that respects the valid concerns voiced by the majority of the community should be respected and implemented.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 101: / Line 101: @@
 === [[Wikipedia talk:Summary_style#RfC: Should the summary style guideline quote WP:Notability and if so in what place]] ===
 Could some admin please summarize this and preferable choose one of the options rather than leaving it to go on to another long dispute. There is a request below it to update the page with one of the options but with the proposer saying they will dispute what they are proposing! I am happy with that if it is a definite decision of the RfC rather than a basis for further dispute. The RfC hasn't been touched for the last day and doesn't seem to be attracting contribution so if you'd like to contribute instead please do. The page will be unprotected tomorrow and I fear if some definite decision isn't reached it will be back to what led to that. [[User:Dmcq|Dmcq]] ([[User talk:Dmcq|talk]]) 21:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
-===BLP's RFC Talk closure===
-Would an admin review [[Talk:Matt Lucas#Former partner]] for closure? Opened 23 May. Thanks, --[[Special:Contributions/92.6.202.54|92.6.202.54]] ([[User talk:92.6.202.54|talk]]) 21:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 ===Discussion at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues#Israeli_cities_in_West_Bank.2C_Seeking_reversal_of_prior_consensus IPCOLL] concerning insertion of mandatory, formulaic, boilerplate text===

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards