Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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, such as when the discussion is about creating, abolishing or changing a policy or guideline.

Billiardball1.png

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 18 December 2018); 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.

Billiardball2.png

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.

Billiardball3.png

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.

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.

Contents

Requests for closure[edit]

Administrative discussions[edit]

Place new administrative discussions above this line[edit]

RfCs[edit]

Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party#RfC: Inclusion of expert opinions, views of pundits, activist groups, tweets, etc.[edit]

(Initiated 122 days ago on 17 September 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party#RfC: Inclusion of expert opinions, views of pundits, activist groups, tweets, etc.? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  • I'm going to have to come back to this one, because it, along with Racism in the UK Conservative Party and Islamophobia in the UK Conservative Party (2016–present) look to be a combination of WP:POVFORK and WP:OR (the article titles scream it to begin with), while the RFC feels like just the end result of bureaucratizing all the problems of a POVFORK/OR combo, too. Incidentally, the articles smell of sock / possibly-banned-users (at cursory inspection; they're also relatively recently created). I can dive deeper into it if truly nobody else is going to (and if I even have time), but this looks like it could be an unnecessary pain to sift through when there might be more overriding/fundamental issues. I dunno;I might just be crazy. Others with better knowledge of British politics should please feel free to deal with this. --slakrtalk / 04:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The issue of antisemitism in the Labour Party of the UK is a significant and controversial subject, so I would strongly suggest that the task of resolving this group of RfCs (some 18 of them!) should be assigned to a group of three administrators rather than simply "an experienced editor." Involved editors have already been making changes, such as this, to the article on the basis of perceived consensus. -The Gnome (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
    I agree that because "the issue of antisemitism in the Labour Party of the UK is a significant and controversial subject" and because of the socking mentioned by slakr, it is likely better to have a panel of three admins close the RfC. Pinging Primefac (talk · contribs), who closed one of the RfCs, for your thoughts. Cunard (talk) 06:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
    Yeah, I bailed on it because it was just such a massive task. I don't think we need a three-editor panel for all of them (some of the discussions like #10 are nearly unanimous) but it might be worthwhile for some of the more nuanced ones. Primefac (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
    Greetings, Primefac. I maintain that one and the same group of at least three admins handles this. It's not so much an issue of difficulty as much as of the need for a consistent and consolidated process. It's a rather large RfC. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC on schools' inclusion criteria[edit]

(Initiated 69 days ago on 9 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC on schools' inclusion criteria? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

 Note: The RfC was archived without being closed. Don't know how this changes things, but the archive is available at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 148#RfC on schools' inclusion criteria. (Non-administrator comment) --DannyS712 (talk) 07:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Fundinguniverse.com[edit]

(Initiated 57 days ago on 21 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Fundinguniverse.com? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The Sun[edit]

(Initiated 51 days ago on 27 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The Sun? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

{{done}} by Winged Blades of Godric. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
TheSandDoctor, Doing... . WBGconverse 00:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion is now archived at Archive 254. — Newslinger talk 04:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Help talk:Citation Style 1#RFC on publisher and location in cite journal[edit]

(Initiated 50 days ago on 27 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Help talk:Citation Style 1#RFC on publisher and location in cite journal? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Cunard: Thanks for listing this. I would like to add that the closer should be familiar with WP:BOTPOL. --Izno (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposed amendment to WP:LISTPEOPLE regarding the inclusion of lists of non-notable victims in articles about tragic events[edit]

(Initiated 50 days ago on 28 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposed amendment to WP:LISTPEOPLE regarding the inclusion of lists of non-notable victims in articles about tragic events? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox election#RfC: "Seats before" and "seat change"[edit]

(Initiated 48 days ago on 30 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox election#RfC: "Seats before" and "seat change"? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Fassbender#RfC about allegations of physical abuse[edit]

(Initiated 45 days ago on 3 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Michael Fassbender#RfC about allegations of physical abuse? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party#Jewdas Passover event‎[edit]

(Initiated 44 days ago on 4 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party#Jewdas Passover event‎? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:List of cities in Israel#RFC (again)[edit]

(Initiated 40 days ago on 7 December 2018) Could an uninvolved and experienced editor please assess the consensus of this discussion and officially close it. Thanks in advance.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: authority control[edit]

(Initiated 41 days ago on 7 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: authority control? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Stav Shaffir#RFC[edit]

(Initiated 41 days ago on 7 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Stav Shaffir#RFC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC on capitalization of the names of standardized breeds[edit]

(Initiated 39 days ago on 9 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC on capitalization of the names of standardized breeds? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taiwan#RfC on English variety and date format in Taiwan-related articles[edit]

(Initiated 39 days ago on 9 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taiwan#RfC on English variety and date format in Taiwan-related articles? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Paul Ryan#RFC: Ordinal numbers[edit]

(Initiated 34 days ago on 13 December 2018), it's been over a week since the last post. GoodDay (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#"Datebot" (limited scope)[edit]

(Initiated 31 days ago on 17 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#"Datebot" (limited scope)? Please close this RfC after 16 January 2019. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#RfC -Which statement is better for the lede section of the MEK article?[edit]

(Initiated 24 days ago on 24 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess consensus on the RfC -Which statement is better for the lede section of the MEK article? discussion? Thanks. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

On hold This has only been open 17 days. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#2nd RfC: Do alternative medicine practitioners have a conflict of interest?[edit]

(Initiated 17 days ago on 30 December 2018) Seems clear there is no consensus for this proposal, though it has the occasional post from editors but mostly repetition of same arguments. There have been several complaints (see talk page) that the proposal is interfering with the function of the COI noticeboard (it should have been created on the talk page). Previous attempt to move it to the talk page was reverted with crude language from two users, one of which is the proposer. I suspect the proposer will only accept an admin closing this. Note that this is the 2nd RFC on the topic (the first was closed after 10 days in 2015), with no change of proposal, and IMO no change of arguments made or balance of opinion on the project. At the very least, could an admin move this to talk, to enable the COI noticeboard to function properly. -- Colin°Talk 08:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line[edit]

Deletion discussions[edit]

Supercentenarian CFDs[edit]

At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7, lot of these that have been open for a month. They probably won't be difficult closes, but this topic has a way of always being controversial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Links to the supercentenarian CfDs:
  1. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:African-American supercentenarians
  2. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Singaporean supercentenarians
  3. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Spanish supercentenarians
  4. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Nigerian supercentenarians
  5. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Hungarian supercentenarians
  6. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:German supercentenarians
  7. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Turkish supercentenarians
  8. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Ukrainian supercentenarians
  9. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Puerto Rican supercentenarians
  10. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Norwegian supercentenarians
Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 15#Wikipedians by philosophy[edit]

(Initiated 33 days ago on 15 December 2018) Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 15#Wikipedians by philosophy? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_November_15#Category:Torture_in_films[edit]

(Initiated 63 days ago on 15 November 2018) Would an admin assess the consensus here? Thanks. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line[edit]

Other types of closing requests[edit]

Talk:Amazon (company)#History of Amazon[edit]

(Initiated 107 days ago on 2 October 2018) Could an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Amazon (company)#History of Amazon? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 November#Jaggi Vasudev[edit]

(Initiated 51 days ago on 27 November 2018) I think it's safe to say that everything that needs to be said has been said 8 or 9 times and useful discussion has died down in this very-much-over-time discussion. If someone would like to be a hero and tackle this I'm sure we'd all be grateful. (COI notice: I was the RM closer.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I am throwing my hat in the ring. But, this's needing a trio-closure. WBGconverse 10:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, but please let an admin(s) do it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
To Winged Blades of Godric and ErikHaugen: Can't always find three admins, so if two admins will help with the close, then one experienced non-admin along with them should be sufficient. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  00:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Recuse in light of this thread. Good luck in finding folks to close it.WBGconverse 05:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
This keeps up, and I'll close it. And ya'll know what outcome that will bring. EH will probably go "Off with her head!" Happy New Year, folks. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  17:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

  • Note: Move review has been relisted to January 2019. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  08:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
    Paine Ellsworth, Amakuru put it back to November Hhkohh (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
    I note that Amakuru has reverted you. Relisting is not done to gain a consensus but to improve participation and if there ain't any consensus for a clear-outcome, No consensus (generally defaulting to endorse) is a perfectly valid closure. WBGconverse 08:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
    Lest we forget, no consensus at MRV may also result in relisting the RM. And, not to be argumentative, however relisting is most certainly done to gain a consensus! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  09:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
    Concur on first point. As to the latter, see WP:RELIST and point 2 of WP:RELISTBIAS; which though concerned with deletion-discussion; is pretty clear on the aspect of relisting a heavily-participated discussion to seek consensus.WBGconverse 10:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, thanks for the good faith effort to move it along, Paine, but I honestly don't think relisting is the answer here... everything that can be said has been said ten times already, and we just need it put out of its misery! Whether it's no consensus or not, I wouldn't like to prejudge - that's up to the closing admin... a case could be made for either overturn or no conensensus probably. Someone will deal with it eventually though.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
    Only 10?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winged Blades of Godric (talkcontribs) 09:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Interstate 75 in Georgia#South Metro Express Lanes merger[edit]

(Initiated 48 days ago on 30 November 2018) The conversation here has not progressed much in over a month. Involved parties seem split equally in favor of merging and not merging. I am requesting for a user who is not involved to close the merge discussion. Mccunicano (talk) 06:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Ian Watkins (Lostprophets)#Requested move 31 December 2018[edit]

(Initiated 17 days ago on 31 December 2018) Could an experienced editor relist or assess the consensus at Talk:Ian Watkins (Lostprophets)#Requested move 31 December 2018? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)