Removed request as issue was resolved elsewhere |
SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) m typo |
||
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
===Requests for Comment=== |
===Requests for Comment=== |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
====[[Talk:Eidetic memory#WP:RfC: Should the article be strict in stating that photographic memory and eidetic memory are not the same thing?]]==== |
====[[Talk:Eidetic memory#WP:RfC: Should the article be strict in stating that photographic memory and eidetic memory are not the same thing?]]==== |
||
Line 173: | Line 169: | ||
====[[Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Donald Trump's false campaign statements]]==== |
====[[Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Donald Trump's false campaign statements]]==== |
||
Would an experienced editor, preferably someone who doesn't have strong feelings for or against [[Donald Trump]] (does such a person exist?), please assess the consensus at [[Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Donald Trump's false campaign statements]]? Thanks. --[[User:DrFleischman|Dr. Fleischman]] ([[User talk:DrFleischman|talk]]) 17:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC) |
Would an experienced editor, preferably someone who doesn't have strong feelings for or against [[Donald Trump]] (does such a person exist?), please assess the consensus at [[Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Donald Trump's false campaign statements]]? Thanks. --[[User:DrFleischman|Dr. Fleischman]] ([[User talk:DrFleischman|talk]]) 17:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC) |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
==== [[Help talk:Hidden text #RfC on status of this page]] ==== |
==== [[Help talk:Hidden text #RfC on status of this page]] ==== |
||
This is a proposal to designate that help page as a guideline. As it has broad implications, I would like a formal closure by an uninvolved editor, please. {{Initiated|18 August 2016}} Discussion petered out a week ago. It has been open less than the default of 30 days, but more than the 7 day minimum per [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines #Good practice for proposals]]. Thanks, --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 00:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC) |
This is a proposal to designate that help page as a guideline. As it has broad implications, I would like a formal closure by an uninvolved editor, please. {{Initiated|18 August 2016}} Discussion petered out a week ago. It has been open less than the default of 30 days, but more than the 7 day minimum per [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines #Good practice for proposals]]. Thanks, --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 00:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC) |
||
==== [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Permit Template:Quote box for regular quotes]] ==== |
|||
This is an "anti-RfC" in misleading, non-neutral terms, canvassed by at least two parties, disrupting the ongoing actual RfC {{em|discussion}} (not vote) above it, and seeking an invalid result: to defy a guideline by changing template documentation. I believe this should be administratively speedily closed as disruptive soapboxing, and the ongoing actual RfC permitted to continue. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 11:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)<p>PS: A second, equally misleading attempt at [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]] against the still-ongoing RfC, without addressing a single issue raised in it, has been opened at [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Sandwiching]]. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 11:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)</p> |
|||
===Deletion discussions=== |
===Deletion discussions=== |
Revision as of 11:26, 1 September 2016
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.
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 comment is 30 days (opened on or before 28 April 2024); if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed early. However, editors usually wait at least a week after an RfC opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion.
If consensus is unclear, then post a neutral request here for assistance.
Please ensure that your request for a close is brief and neutrally worded. Please include a link to the discussion. Do not use this board to continue the discussion in question. Be prepared to wait for someone to review the discussion. If you disagree with a particular closure, do not dispute it here. You can start discussion at the original page or request a Closure review at Administrators' noticeboard with a link to the discussion page and the policy-based reason you believe the closure should be overturned. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive for previous closure reviews.
Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.
Because requests for closure made here are often those that are the most contentious, closing these discussions can be a significant responsibility. Closers should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion. All closers should be prepared to fully discuss the closure rationale with any editors who have questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that those editors may have.
A request for comment discussed how to appeal closures and whether an administrator can summarily overturn a non-administrator's closure. The consensus was that closures should not be reverted solely because the closer was not an administrator. However, special considerations apply for articles for deletion and move discussions—see 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.
Requests for closure
Requests for Comment
Talk:Eidetic memory#WP:RfC: Should the article be strict in stating that photographic memory and eidetic memory are not the same thing?
Things look okay at the article these days, but this discussion should have a close to help put the previous dispute to bed. Keep in mind that the question is not simply about distinguishing the terms (which is something the article already does); it's about whether we should strictly distinguish them (as in say they are not the same thing and leave it at that). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Abkhazia#RfC on Infobox
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Abkhazia#RfC on Infobox (Initiated 2898 days ago on 21 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Order of the Netherlands Lion#RfC, Name of the article
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Order of the Netherlands Lion#RfC, Name of the article (Initiated 2891 days ago on 28 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Doctor Who (series 9)#Another RfC: Episode Groupings
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Doctor Who (series 9)#Another RfC: Episode Groupings (Initiated 2890 days ago on 29 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RFC: should galleries use mode=packed by default?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RFC: should galleries use mode=packed by default? (Initiated 2895 days ago on 24 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Give it some more time. It seems that technical improvements are in the pipeline, which may affect the options available. Deryck C. 14:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Deryck Chan (talk · contribs), I've fixed the initiated date from 19 July 2016 to 24 June 2016. I listed it here because it had been archived. Cunard (talk) 05:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- My apologies. It got archived already... I'm not sure that discussion has a closure action as it is. You can slap an {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}} onto it if you feel necessary? Deryck C. 09:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Marking as not done for the bot for now, because I'm not sure what there is to do. Deryck C. 23:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- Deryck Chan (talk · contribs), why is there nothing to do? The proposal was to move galleries from
mode=traditional
by default tomode=packed
by default. The proposal received much discussion from the community. An RfC close would determine whether the proposal was successful. If it is successful, then the technical change could be implemented, If it not successful, then a close would note that and possibly summarize points of agreement that could help frame future discussions. I've removed the not done tag. I have not closed the discussion myself because I would not be an objective closer for this subject. Cunard (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)- @Cunard: In that case would it make more sense to re-open the discussion (by moving it back to the main noticeboard) first, then close again after another few days? Deryck C. 17:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've unarchived the discussion and added my opinion. I agree with closing this after a few days. Cunard (talk) 05:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Cunard: In that case would it make more sense to re-open the discussion (by moving it back to the main noticeboard) first, then close again after another few days? Deryck C. 17:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Deryck Chan (talk · contribs), why is there nothing to do? The proposal was to move galleries from
Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Can other site accounts ever be linked to
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Can other site accounts ever be linked to (Initiated 2889 days ago on 30 June 2016)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm thinking a three-person closure (Including at least one user who handles non-public information on a regular basis) would be advisable for this discussion. I'll volunteer with the admission that I am probably one of the worst people to close this, so I'll defer to basically any other team of three. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Cunard and Tazerdadog:
Am up for it. Deryck C. 13:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)- Ok, so we need at least one more, and someone who has handled private info on a regular basis. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
The WP:Signpost has just run two issues that discuss the issue at hand extensively. This is likely to generate a lot extra participation in the debate in the coming week or so, which will hopefully generate new arguments and possibly affect the outcome. I think we should hold on for at least two more weeks before closure. Deryck C. 23:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- Two weeks might be excessive, but a week is certainly a good idea. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Cunard and Tazeradog: Okay, probably time to get people to close this. Any nominations on "someone who has handled private info on a regular basis"? I have handled personal information for Wikimedia before, but that's in the context of organising meatspace Wikimedia events. Deryck C. 12:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging Euryalus (talk · contribs) and HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs), oversighters who have posted in WP:ANRFC recently. Would one of you be able to join Tazerdadog and Deryck Chan in closing the discussion? Or do you know how to reach out to others who have "handled private info on a regular basis"? Cunard (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping, but I should decline the offer given I've directly contributed to the debate on a couple of occasions, as well as the Signpost editorial comment section. The best ways to reach others who handled routinely handled private information. would be a neutrally-worded email to functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org, which will reach current CU's and Oversighters plus a small collection of former arbs. Someone who hasn't taken part in the debate would hopefully then step forward to help with the close. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging Euryalus (talk · contribs) and HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs), oversighters who have posted in WP:ANRFC recently. Would one of you be able to join Tazerdadog and Deryck Chan in closing the discussion? Or do you know how to reach out to others who have "handled private info on a regular basis"? Cunard (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Cunard and Tazeradog: Okay, probably time to get people to close this. Any nominations on "someone who has handled private info on a regular basis"? I have handled personal information for Wikimedia before, but that's in the context of organising meatspace Wikimedia events. Deryck C. 12:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Rajka Baković#Request for comments
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Rajka Baković#Request for comments (Initiated 2885 days ago on 4 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Rolfing#NPOV - Request for Comments - Contentious Labels - "Quackery" "Pseudoscience" Opinions Stated as Fact
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Rolfing#NPOV - Request for Comments - Contentious Labels - "Quackery" "Pseudoscience" Opinions Stated as Fact (Initiated 2882 days ago on 7 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Earthquake prediction#RfC re neutrality/POV issues
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Earthquake prediction#RfC re neutrality/POV issues (Initiated 2873 days ago on 16 July 2016)? See the subsection Talk:Earthquake prediction#Non-Participation, where a participant expressed a desire for closure: "Is that a possible outcome: no closure at all, or a 'no consensus' close to the RFC, after all this discussion? Sigh... I was at least hoping that a close might decide whether 'natural time' and the VAN prediction of 2008 can be mentioned in the article." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Extraterrestrial atmosphere#Confusing article titles
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Extraterrestrial atmosphere#Confusing article titles (Initiated 2883 days ago on 6 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Singla#RFC: Is Singla a Jatt caste?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Singla#RFC: Is Singla a Jatt caste? (Initiated 2867 days ago on 22 July 2016)? There is an edit war over the outcome of the RfC regarding whether the page is a disambiguation page. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Request for Comment: Disambiguation and inherently ambiguous titles
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Request for Comment: Disambiguation and inherently ambiguous titles (Initiated 2877 days ago on 12 July 2016)? The previous RfC was at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 129#Wikipedia:Disambiguation and inherently ambiguous titles. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Notability#Systemic Bias: Proposing a separate standard of notability and Wikipedia talk:Notability#Adding ways to assess Systemic Bias to WP:N
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfCs at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Systemic Bias: Proposing a separate standard of notability and Wikipedia talk:Notability#Adding ways to assess Systemic Bias to WP:N (Initiated 2885 days ago on 4 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Novak Djokovic#RfC Novak's mother
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Novak Djokovic#RfC Novak's mother? (Initiated 2873 days ago on 16 July 2016) Vanjagenije (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- I was just here to request this to see that it has already been done. I endorse this request. 89.164.194.127 (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Assault rifle#False, unsourced claim, and generally the article's a mess of Apocrypha and bias
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Assault rifle#False, unsourced claim, and generally the article's a mess of Apocrypha and bias (Initiated 2879 days ago on 10 July 2016)? My RfC close of this discussion was contested. I considered this an uncontroversial, "consensus is clear" close, which has turned out to be an incorrect assumption so I have undone my close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- If we could hurry this one along that would be nice.TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Unseen character#Request For Comments - examples that Wikipedia editors don't believe qualify
Comments by additional uninvolved editors have stopped (last time a new editor became involved was 16 days ago) and one very inexperienced editor (only been on Wikipedia one month) continues to repeatedly bring up issues which are outside the scope of the RfC (wants to talk about text in the lede when the RfC is specific to including examples elsewhere in the article). Except for this inexperienced editor (Handthrown), the RfC has consensus (from Mmyers1976, Doniago, SummerPhD, and DionysusProteus) that the examples should be included, and arguments against inclusion depend on OR, but Handthrown has been very sensitive to attempts to collapse their off-topic comments so may object to a closure by anyone but a completely univolved editor. Mmyers1976 (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict#Merge
An outdated merger discussion from April 2016.GreyShark (dibra) 14:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Closure by an uninvolved admin is needed at Talk:Gustav Holst#RfC on removal of hidden comment, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Talk:B. Alan Wallace#Request for comment
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:B. Alan Wallace#Request for comment (Initiated 2870 days ago on 19 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Iraq War#RFC: What is the subject of this article?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Iraq War#RFC: What is the subject of this article? (Initiated 2867 days ago on 22 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Monosodium glutamate#RFC
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Monosodium glutamate#RFC (Initiated 2870 days ago on 19 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Geodakyan's evolutionary theory of sex#RFC on relevance and context
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Geodakyan's evolutionary theory of sex#RFC on relevance and context (Initiated 2865 days ago on 24 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Talk:List of best-selling albums in the United States#Request for comment on use of sources
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of best-selling albums in the United States#Request for comment on use of sources (Initiated 2870 days ago on 19 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Frank Gaffney#RfC: Should Gaffney be described as a "conspiracy theorist" instead of "proponent of conspiracy theories"?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Frank Gaffney#RfC: Should Gaffney be described as a "conspiracy theorist" instead of "proponent of conspiracy theories"? (Initiated 2868 days ago on 21 July 2016)? Please consider the closed RfC Talk:Frank Gaffney#"Conspiracy Theorist" in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 20#RFC:Should Judge Curiel’s membership in the Hispanic National Bar Association be in the Donald Trump article?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 20#RFC:Should Judge Curiel’s membership in the Hispanic National Bar Association be in the Donald Trump article? (Initiated 2847 days ago on 11 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game)#Should Japanese names of subjects without Wikipedia articles be footnoted?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game)#Should Japanese names of subjects without Wikipedia articles be footnoted? (Initiated 2873 days ago on 16 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Talk:List of WWE Intercontinental Champions#Requests for comment
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of WWE Intercontinental Champions#Requests for comment (Initiated 2868 days ago on 21 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#RfC for NFCC#8 exemptions for currency and USPS stamps
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#RfC for NFCC#8 exemptions for currency and USPS stamps (Initiated 2861 days ago on 28 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive283#Request to appeal unblock conditions (voluntary topic ban)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive283#Request to appeal unblock conditions (voluntary topic ban) (Initiated 2837 days ago on 21 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Donald Trump's false campaign statements
Would an experienced editor, preferably someone who doesn't have strong feelings for or against Donald Trump (does such a person exist?), please assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Donald Trump's false campaign statements? Thanks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Arrow (season 1)#RFC: First or Last Names?
The 30 day period has ended. Will an uninvolved editor please close the RfC and state their decision? --HamedH94 (talk) 06:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Help talk:Hidden text #RfC on status of this page
This is a proposal to designate that help page as a guideline. As it has broad implications, I would like a formal closure by an uninvolved editor, please. (Initiated 2840 days ago on 18 August 2016) Discussion petered out a week ago. It has been open less than the default of 30 days, but more than the 7 day minimum per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines #Good practice for proposals. Thanks, --RexxS (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Permit Template:Quote box for regular quotes
This is an "anti-RfC" in misleading, non-neutral terms, canvassed by at least two parties, disrupting the ongoing actual RfC discussion (not vote) above it, and seeking an invalid result: to defy a guideline by changing template documentation. I believe this should be administratively speedily closed as disruptive soapboxing, and the ongoing actual RfC permitted to continue. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
PS: A second, equally misleading attempt at WP:FORUMSHOPPING against the still-ongoing RfC, without addressing a single issue raised in it, has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Sandwiching. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Deletion discussions
Wikipedia:Miscellany for discussion
This discussion forum has an average backlog with approximately 20 discussions that have yet to be closed, the oldest of which is from July 2016. (04:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC))
Wikipedia:Files for discussion#Old discussions
There's 100+ open discussions, some well over two months old. The vast majority of these are easy closures. Would appreciate it if an admin could spend an hour or so clearing these out. Thanks! -FASTILY 08:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Discussions awaiting closure
There are approximately 50 discussions that have yet to be closed, the oldest of which is from April 25, 2016. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Update, there are approximately 150 discussions that have yet to be closed, the oldest is from early June. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
RevDel amendment
This proposal for amendment of the RevDel guidelines has been open for more than a month. Currently 100% of !votes are in favor of adopting the amendment with a thorough discussion among a variety of other editors who have chosen not to register any opposition. Despite a low number of !votes, the participation of a large number of editors without registered objection seems to indicate no objection to adoption of the amendment. Could it please be evaluated for closure? LavaBaron (talk) 05:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've updated the link to point to Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion#RfC on Amendment of Block Log Rev Del Policy instead of Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion. Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- @LavaBaron: Unfortunately, I see this as a very significant change to the revision deletion policy (since it would change longstanding practice regarding block logs), requiring a much broader consensus than the support of the proposer. It's better to assume that people haven't yet seen the proposal, rather than assuming that nobody will object to it. I recommend making neutral notes to the proposal on central community noticeboards like T:CENT, WP:VPP, and perhaps WP:AN to gather more input (within the bounds of WP:CANVASS, of course). As an uninvolved editor, if I were to close the discussion right now, it would regrettably have to be "no consensus". Mz7 (talk) 04:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karla Lane
This was relisted a week ago [redact obvious WP:CANVASSING violation], so I request an uninvolved admin to do the honors. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 22:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)