Misplaced Pages

:Closure requests: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:24, 29 September 2019 editGRuban (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers31,734 edits →Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 10#Jeremy Corbyn vs. the Labour Party 2: {{Done}}, really this time.← Previous edit Revision as of 23:44, 29 September 2019 edit undoMandruss (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users65,020 edits →RfCs: +Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: books in leadNext edit →
Line 202: Line 202:
====]==== ====]====
{{Initiated|22:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)}} Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ]? Thanks--] (]) 23:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC) {{Initiated|22:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)}} Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ]? Thanks--] (]) 23:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

====]====
{{Initiated|08:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)}} Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ]? Thanks, ―] ] 23:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


==== Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading ==== ==== Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading ====

Revision as of 23:44, 29 September 2019

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.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages'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
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Archiving icon
    Archives
    Index
    Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
    Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
    Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
    Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
    Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
    Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18
    Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21
    Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24
    Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27
    Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30
    Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33
    Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36
    Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39

    This page has archives. Sections older than 300 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.
    Shortcuts

    The Requests for closure noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Misplaced Pages. Formal closure by an uninvolved editor or administrator should be requested where consensus remains unclear, where the issue is a contentious one, or where there are wiki-wide implications, such as when the discussion is about creating, abolishing or changing a policy or guideline.

    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 25 December 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 a discussion opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion.

    On average, it takes two or three weeks after the discussion ended to get a formal closure from an uninvolved editor. When the consensus is reasonably clear, participants may be best served by not requesting and then waiting weeks for a formal closure.

    If consensus is unclear, then post a neutral request here for assistance.

    Please ensure that your request for closure is brief and neutrally worded, and also ensure that a link to the discussion itself is included as well. Be prepared to wait for someone to act on your request and do not use this board to continue the discussion in question.

    If you disagree with a particular closure, do not dispute it here. Please discuss matters on the closer's talk page instead, and, if necessary, request a closure review at the administrators' noticeboard. Include links to the closure being challenged and the discussion on the closer's talk page, and also include a policy-based rationale supporting your request for the closure to be overturned.

    See Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions and Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Closing instructions for details.

    To reduce editing conflicts and an undesirable duplication of effort when closing a discussion listed on this page, please append {{Closing}} or {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry here. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note which allows archiving of the completed request.

    Requests for closure

    See also: Misplaced Pages:Requested moves § Elapsed listings, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old, Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion, Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure, Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion § Old discussions, and Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion § Old business

    Administrative discussions

    Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 4 heading

    RfCs

    Talk:Bengal famine of 1943#RfC: Material from the 2019 Geophysical Research Letters study

    (Initiated 2053 days ago on 11 June 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bengal famine of 1943#RfC: Material from the 2019 Geophysical Research Letters study? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

    Cunard, It looks like this discussion was archived without a formal close. At a glance, it seems like it's likely no consensus, in which case it wouldn't really benefit from a formal close (and also it doesn't look like anyone's complained about the lack of action). Should we reinstate the discussion to allow for a formal close, or just leave it be? signed, Rosguill 22:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    Rosguill (talk · contribs), an RfC participant asked here why the RfC has not been closed with these comments: "There was recently an RfC here. It seems to not so much have been closed by a human as to have been disappeared by bots. Surely we should have a close" and "Now I'm really confused. You appear to have voted in the RfC. Nothing wrong with that, but an RfC should be closed by an uninvolved user. Furthermore, I don't see any closing commit with a summary of the consensus as one usually sees."

    Let me know if this changes your opinion on whether it should be closed. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

    Cunard, thanks, I think in that case getting an actual close is warranted. signed, Rosguill 01:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Header text

    (Initiated 2052 days ago on 12 June 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Header text? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

    Talk:Sukavich Rangsitpol#RfC

    (Initiated 2045 days ago on 20 June 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sukavich Rangsitpol#RfC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

    Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 12#RfC: antifa and terrorism

    (Initiated 2031 days ago on 3 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 12#RfC: antifa and terrorism? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Archive 4#RfC: Should we use Breitbart News as a source regarding the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram?

    (Initiated 2030 days ago on 5 July 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor administrator please assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Archive 4#RfC: Should we use Breitbart News as a source regarding the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 10:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC) One editor in the discussion specifically requested a closure by an administrator. — Newslinger talk 11:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

    Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 10#Jeremy Corbyn vs. the Labour Party 2

    (Initiated 2028 days ago on 6 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 10#Jeremy Corbyn vs. the Labour Party 2? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

    This seems to be a more nuanced discussion than a standard RfC, I don't see any formal supports and opposes to compare. I'm marking it done here, but don't see a need for a formal closure there. If someone disagrees, please ping me and I can come back to it.--GRuban (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
    In which case, {{not done}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
    GRuban (talk · contribs), the link I added was incorrect. It should be Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 10#Jeremy Corbyn vs. the Labour Party 2 (where there are formal supports), not Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 10#Jeremy Corbyn vs. the Labour Party (where there are no formal supports). Let me know if this changes your opinion on whether it should be closed. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
    Ah, thank you, that makes a difference, will look.--GRuban (talk) 04:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
     Done, really this time. --GRuban (talk) 14:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Add 'create an article' option in the interface

    (Initiated 2028 days ago on 7 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Add 'create an article' option in the interface? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

    Talk:Gatestone Institute#RfC: Description as conservative and anti-Muslim in the first line of the lede

    (Initiated 2026 days ago on 8 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gatestone Institute#RfC: Description as conservative and anti-Muslim in the first line of the lede? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

    Would an uninvolved experienced administrator please assess the consensus at Talk:Gatestone_Institute#RfC:_Description_as_conservative_and_anti-Muslim_in_the_first_line_of_the_lede? Thank you. (JBlackCoffee52 (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC))

    Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings#RfC about info box accused = Brenton Harrison Tarrant

    (Initiated 2025 days ago on 10 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings#RfC about info box accused = Brenton Harrison Tarrant? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

    Talk:NYC Pride March#RfC: On São Paulo content

    (Initiated 2023 days ago on 11 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:NYC Pride March#RfC: On São Paulo content? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Taki's Magazine

    (Initiated 2022 days ago on 13 July 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Taki's Magazine? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 17:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: Moratorium on "general reliability" RFCs

    (Initiated 2021 days ago on 14 July 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: Moratorium on "general reliability" RFCs? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 17:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

    Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair#RfC about the first sentence

    (Initiated 2017 days ago on 17 July 2019) When the time comes, would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair#RfC about the first sentence? Thanks--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

    • Note to closer - This RfC should be allowed to run its course. I have just posted it here now so there is some advance notice. The topic of the RfC was originally discussed in this first RfC which was closed without consensus being reached. For much of the time it was open, editing on this article had been before ArbCom. Following that, a second RfC was opened and then closed early so other options could also be considered. A straw poll had occurred at the same time. This third RfC began to consider all options shortly thereafter.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

    This RfC is ready to be closed. Safrolic (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 153#RFC:Purposes of Portals (19 July 2019)

    (Initiated 2016 days ago on 19 July 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please asses the consensus at this RFC: Purposes of Portals (19 July 2019) RfC on the purposes of portals? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

    Talk:Next United Kingdom general election#RfC about the infobox

    (Initiated 2016 days ago on 19 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Next United Kingdom general election#RfC about the infobox? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators#Resysop criteria: RfC on principles

    (Initiated 2015 days ago on 20 July 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators#Resysop criteria: RfC on principles? Thank you. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

    Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 10#RfC on inclusion of claims in Panorama documentary and 64 peers' letter (advertisement)

    (Initiated 2014 days ago on 20 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 10#RfC on inclusion of claims in Panorama documentary and 64 peers' letter (advertisement)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Naming conventions for public statues

    (Initiated 2013 days ago on 21 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Naming conventions for public statues? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

    Talk:Alt-right#RfC about the opening sentence

    (Initiated 2012 days ago on 23 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alt-right#RfC about the opening sentence? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

    Talk:Abby Martin#RfC: 9/11 Truther

    (Initiated 2012 days ago on 23 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Abby Martin#RfC: 9/11 Truther? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

    Talk:Israel Shamir#RFC: should we include claims by Shamir that he was a paratrooper and worked for the BBC and Haaretz which originate from his personal website

    (Initiated 2008 days ago on 26 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Israel Shamir#RFC: should we include claims by Shamir that he was a paratrooper and worked for the BBC and Haaretz which originate from his personal website? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

    Talk:Immigration and crime in Germany#RfC: "By Region" section

    (Initiated 2005 days ago on 29 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Immigration and crime in Germany#RfC: "By Region" section? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

    Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#RfC about including the MEK's current principles

    (Initiated 2002 days ago on 1 August 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus on this RfC? Legobot keeps removing RfC ID, so was adviced to bring it here for closure. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 161#OpenStreetMap

    (Initiated 1999 days ago on 4 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 161#OpenStreetMap? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

    Talk:2019 El Paso shooting#Include or exclude victim names

    (Initiated 1999 days ago on 4 August 2019) Would an uninvolved closer please assess the consensus here. See also the similar discussion at Talk:2019 Dayton shooting#Include or exclude victim names. TompaDompa (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

    Please review Talk:2019 El Paso shooting#Include or exclude victim names. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

    Talk:2019 Dayton shooting#Include or exclude victim names

    (Initiated 1999 days ago on 4 August 2019) Would an uninvolved closer please assess the consensus here. See also the similar discussion at Talk:2019 El Paso shooting#Include or exclude victim names. TompaDompa (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

    Talk:Penny Rowson#RfC for infobox

    (Initiated 1999 days ago on 5 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Penny Rowson#RfC for infobox? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

    Talk:Central Europe#RfC about comparison between countries

    (Initiated 1998 days ago on 5 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Central Europe#RfC about comparison between countries? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#Suppress rendering of Template:Misplaced Pages books

    (Initiated 1997 days ago on 6 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#Suppress rendering of Template:Misplaced Pages books? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

    Talk:List of terrorist incidents#RfC: List criteria

    (Initiated 1993 days ago on 10 August 2019) If nobody closes this, the terrorists win. Thanks in advance! – Levivich 02:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

    Talk:The Australian#RfC Centre-right to right wing

    (Initiated 1993 days ago on 10 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Australian#RfC Centre-right to right wing? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Tennis#RFC - placement of "greatest" in tennis article leads

    (Initiated 1991 days ago on 12 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Tennis#RFC - placement of "greatest" in tennis article leads? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

    Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests#Rfc on including Junius Ho in the infobox of this article which use Template:Infobox civil conflict

    (Initiated 1991 days ago on 12 August 2019) Seeking an experienced and uninvolved editor to assess the consensus at Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests#Rfc on including Junius Ho in the infobox of this article which use Template:Infobox civil conflict. Matthew hk (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

    Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

    Talk:Campus sexual assault#RFC on weighting sexual assault research

    (Initiated 1987 days ago on 16 August 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Campus sexual assault#RFC on weighting sexual assault research? This is slightly under the 30 day mark, but there's been no discussion for a week. Thanks!  Nblund 16:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

    Talk:Richard B. Spencer#RFC 2: The Sequel

    (Initiated 1984 days ago on 19 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Richard B. Spencer#RFC 2: The Sequel? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

    Talk:Duodecimal#RfC: Extra digits

    (Initiated 1982 days ago on 21 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Duodecimal#RfC: Extra digits? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

    Talk:Tucker Carlson#Poll: Do allegations of racism belong in the lead section?

    (Initiated 1982 days ago on 22 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Tucker Carlson#Poll: Do allegations of racism belong in the lead section?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

    Talk:Greek language#RfC

    (Initiated 1981 days ago on 22 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Greek language#RfC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

    Talk:Same-sex marriage

    (Initiated 1975 days ago on 28 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Same-sex marriage#RfC: Is Same-Sex-Marriage legal nationwide in the United States?? Thanks--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

    Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: books in lead

    (Initiated 1967 days ago on 6 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: books in lead? Thanks, ―Mandruss ☎ 23:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

    Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading

    Deletion discussions

    XFD backlog
    V Oct Nov Dec Jan Total
    CfD 0 0 0 23 23
    TfD 0 0 0 3 3
    MfD 0 0 0 3 3
    FfD 0 0 2 20 22
    RfD 0 0 0 73 73
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0

    Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 19#Las Blancas

    (Initiated 2011 days ago on 24 July 2019) Would an experienced administrator please close this discussion? Most WP:RFD regulars, including administrators, have already participated in this discussion, leaving few options for potential closers. (I just relisted this one yesterday, but I did not realize how old this discussion was until today Of course, per WP:RELIST, since the initial 7-day period has long-passed, if consensus can be assessed, the discussion can be closed at any time.) Steel1943 (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_September_16#Template:Ali_Jones

    (Initiated 1976 days ago on 28 August 2019) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

    Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 4 heading

    Other types of closing requests

    Talk:2019 World Rally Championship

    (Initiated 2100 days ago on 26 April 2019) Would an experienced editor or administrator please review this discussion? An older discussion on the subject exists and might need to be considered as well.Tvx1 11:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010#Disruptive editing on Taiwan regarding English variety

    (Initiated 2086 days ago on 10 May 2019) – Would an administrator assess this issue and take necessary action please. Ythlev (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC) @DannyS712: Stale discussions are exactly the ones that need admin involvement according to this page. Is no action to be taken against disruptive editing? Ythlev (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

    No action required, this has been archived for months. Content disputes are not an issue for administrators. Should the issue still require administration attention due to conduct of your fellow users, then open a new thread on WP:ANI. Fish+Karate 11:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Fish and karate: Please explain what the administrators' noticeboard is for if admins just ignore the issues on them. When a users violates WP policies and discussion does not resolve the issue, is it not the job of admins to assess the arguments and take necessary action? Otherwise the edit war would just continue. Ythlev (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
    Are the issues still occurring? This is from over 4 months ago, so I believe if the same issues still occurring, a new thread would be better, particularly as it could provide context around additional things that have happened since 10 May when this thread was started. As you and Redrose64 disagree I shall step away from this one. Fish+Karate 08:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Fish and karate: What suggests that I "disagree" with Ythlev? Please use diffs where appropriate. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
    You both disagreed with me. I didn’t say you disagreed with Ythlev. Fish+Karate 22:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

    Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 4 heading

    Category:
    Misplaced Pages:Closure requests: Difference between revisions Add topic