Content deleted Content added
Jax 0677, if you undo an archiving edit, you need to undo at both ends, otherwise when it gets archived again there'll be two copies in the archive Tag: Replaced |
ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 3 discussions from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. (BOT) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Aan}} |
{{Aan}} |
||
==== [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Clarification of WP:3RR]] ==== |
|||
{{Initiated|06 April 2019|type=mrv|done=yes}} Could an experienced editor assess the consensus [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Clarification_of_WP:3RR|here]]? --[[User:Jax 0677|Jax 0677]] ([[User talk:Jax 0677|talk]]) 14:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:{{A note}} archived without official closure at [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27 noticeboard/Archive308#Clarification of WP:3RR]] --[[User:DannyS712|DannyS712]] ([[User talk:DannyS712|talk]]) 18:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::*''' Reply '''- Due to its relevance, I recommend formal closure of this thread. --[[User:Jax 0677|Jax 0677]] ([[User talk:Jax 0677|talk]]) 13:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:{{tl|Not done}} A specific example of editors disagreeing whether a certain edit counts as a "revert" does not require closing. Both editors who edit-warred were at fault here and it's clear there is no consensus that El C's judgement was incorrect or that the [[WP:3RR]] policy needs to be changed. The fact that the discussion died indicates as much. If you wish such a change to happen, propose it in a RFC. Regards [[User:SoWhy|<span style="color:#7A2F2F;font-variant:small-caps">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="color:#474F84;font-variant:small-caps">Why</span>]] 16:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC) |
|||
==== [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#HuffPost article on WP COI editing]] ==== |
|||
{{Initiated|15 March 2019|done=yes}} Could an experienced editor assess the consensus [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#HuffPost_article_on_WP_COI_editing|here]]? --[[User:Jax 0677|Jax 0677]] ([[User talk:Jax 0677|talk]]) 14:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
: Not done - Does not require a formal closure or a formalized reading of consensus. See AN. Users have already been advised the proper way to make a policy proposal should they wish to do so. [[User:Swarm|<span style="color:black">'''~Swarm~'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Swarm|<span style="color:DarkViolet">{sting}</span>]]</sup> 02:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::''' Reply '''- {{yo|Swarm}}, per [[WP:BRD]], I think we should have an administrator not involved in this discussion make that decision, not you, nor I. --[[User:Jax 0677|Jax 0677]] ([[User talk:Jax 0677|talk]]) 13:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
*{{tl|Not done}} As an uninvolved admin, I agree with Swarm here. The discussion brought up a number of previously discussed points but regarding the HuPo article there seems to be consensus that a) the article was written by someone who has no idea how Wikipedia works and b) the editor mentioned in said article has not violated any policies or ToU. As [[WP:PAID#Changing this policy]] is clear that any changes to how we handle paid editing itself "must be conducted in a manner consistent with the standard consensus-based process for establishing core policies", even if there were any consensus to make changes to PAID (which I don't see), it would not be sufficient to actually change the policy. So there is nothing to formally close here which is why I am marking this as not done with the suggestion that those who wish to see a change in policy initiate a RFC as described on [[WP:PAID]] and not have such conversations at AN where many editors will not see it. Regards [[User:SoWhy|<span style="color:#7A2F2F;font-variant:small-caps">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="color:#474F84;font-variant:small-caps">Why</span>]] 16:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC) |
|||
====[[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 April 10#Concord Orchestra]]==== |
|||
{{Initiated|06:03 12 April 2019 (UTC)|type=drv|done=yes}} <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] ([[User talk:RoySmith#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/RoySmith|contribs]]) 15:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)</small> |
|||
:{{tl|done}} by {{u|Jo-Jo Eumerus}} - [[Special:Diff/894986513|diff]]. --[[User:DannyS712|DannyS712]] ([[User talk:DannyS712|talk]]) 08:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 01:55, 2 May 2019
| Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 35 |
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Clarification of WP:3RR
(Initiated 1868 days ago on 6 April 2019) Could an experienced editor assess the consensus here? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: archived without official closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive308#Clarification of WP:3RR --DannyS712 (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} A specific example of editors disagreeing whether a certain edit counts as a "revert" does not require closing. Both editors who edit-warred were at fault here and it's clear there is no consensus that El C's judgement was incorrect or that the WP:3RR policy needs to be changed. The fact that the discussion died indicates as much. If you wish such a change to happen, propose it in a RFC. Regards SoWhy 16:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#HuffPost article on WP COI editing
(Initiated 1890 days ago on 15 March 2019) Could an experienced editor assess the consensus here? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Not done - Does not require a formal closure or a formalized reading of consensus. See AN. Users have already been advised the proper way to make a policy proposal should they wish to do so. ~Swarm~ {sting} 02:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} As an uninvolved admin, I agree with Swarm here. The discussion brought up a number of previously discussed points but regarding the HuPo article there seems to be consensus that a) the article was written by someone who has no idea how Wikipedia works and b) the editor mentioned in said article has not violated any policies or ToU. As WP:PAID#Changing this policy is clear that any changes to how we handle paid editing itself "must be conducted in a manner consistent with the standard consensus-based process for establishing core policies", even if there were any consensus to make changes to PAID (which I don't see), it would not be sufficient to actually change the policy. So there is nothing to formally close here which is why I am marking this as not done with the suggestion that those who wish to see a change in policy initiate a RFC as described on WP:PAID and not have such conversations at AN where many editors will not see it. Regards SoWhy 16:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 April 10#Concord Orchestra
(Initiated 1862 days ago on 12 April 2019) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 15:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Jo-Jo Eumerus - diff. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)