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 24 February 2019); 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 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 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 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 using a level 4 heading[edit]

RfCs[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Implementing edit filter warnings for deprecated sources[edit]

(Initiated 65 days ago on 20 January 2019) I don't think this was advertised as an RfC, but either way it would probably benefit from a formal closure by an experienced editor. Sunrise (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

No, it wasn't a formal RfC - no {{rfc}} tag was used. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:Subscription required#RfC: Replace template with CS1/2 mechanism where possible[edit]

(Initiated 63 days ago on 22 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Subscription required#RfC: Replace template with CS1/2 mechanism where possible? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Nobuhiro Watsuki#Request for comments about 2017 charges[edit]

(Initiated 56 days ago on 29 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nobuhiro Watsuki#Request for comments about 2017 charges? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Killing of Aya Maasarwe#Description of Aya nationality[edit]

(Initiated 55 days ago on 29 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Killing of Aya Maasarwe#Description of Aya nationality? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

On hold Comment no consensus yet - "Israeli" has 10 !votes while "Palestinian-Israeli" and "Palestinian citizen of Israel" each have 6. Qzekrom 💬 theythem 15:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Marriott International#RFC: citation style[edit]

(Initiated 55 days ago on 30 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Marriott International#RFC: citation style. Matthew hk (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2 Hearts (2007 song)#RFC: Original version/Cover version[edit]

(Initiated 54 days ago on 30 January 2019) I'm looking for the closure of the RFC if consensus has been reached. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 15:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Telesur[edit]

(Initiated 53 days ago on 1 February 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Telesur? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 06:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:World War I#German Leaders and Hussein bin Ali[edit]

(Initiated 51 days ago on 3 February 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:World War I#German Leaders and Hussein bin Ali? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Cathy McMorris Rodgers#Inclusion of biographical history[edit]

(Initiated 50 days ago on 4 February 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cathy McMorris Rodgers#Inclusion of biographical history? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Venezuelanalysis[edit]

(Initiated 43 days ago on 11 February 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Venezuelanalysis? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 04:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (broadcasting)#RfC - defunct station disambiguators[edit]

(Initiated 43 days ago on 11 February 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (broadcasting)#RfC - defunct station disambiguators? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Xennials#RFC - Lede[edit]

(Initiated 42 days ago on 12 February 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Xennials#RFC - Lede? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Gawker[edit]

(Initiated 41 days ago on 13 February 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Gawker? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 10:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#RfC regarding the use of "alt-text" for all FACs[edit]

(Initiated 40 days ago on 14 February 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#RfC regarding the use of "alt-text" for all FACs? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC[edit]

(Initiated 38 days ago on 15 February 2019) Would a panel of three experienced editors (or administrators if they so choose) please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC? The closure will be a bit of a minefield, with many simultaneous discussions taking place in the various sub-sections. The closure is already overdue since the closure date was set as 17 March and listed at the top of the page from the outset, a date which has now passed. This RfC was conducted in accordance with the following ARBCOM motion: [1], and its closure should conform to the motion as well. Closers might want to additionally take a look at discussions on the corresponding talk page for the RfC Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC. - Wiz9999 (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

clock In progress Closing RfC discussion for recording consensus. On hold Until 2 more editors are willing to close. --QEDK () 17:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@QEDK: I'd like to help - only 1 more needed --DannyS712 (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712:: sorry, nothing personal against you, but I'm not quite convinced you have the necessary experience for this task. What we need here are highly experienced editors who are deeply familiar with the relevant content policies and with the intricacies of content creation in POV-sensitive areas. Sorry, but you've been around only for six months and I can find no record of you dealing with policy issues of this complexity before. Fut.Perf. 08:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Future Perfect at Sunrise: [2] His level of contribution seems adequate to me, despite the 6 month period his account has been active. - Wiz9999 (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
He seems to me like an editor who has been racking up a high edit count by means of a lot of routine gnoming work in the areas of XfDs, responding to edit requests and the like, but no substantial content maintenance experience in politically sensitive areas, and nothing I can find that shows him deeply engaging with complex policy issues. Sorry, but no. Fut.Perf. 09:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I probably should not have an opinion as someone who is volunteering as one the closers but I do agree with FPAS' viewpoint that editors might regard Danny as inexperienced due to their relative inexperience in edits and age. I'm moving this to the main AN noticeboard for more visibility — and more opinions as to who should be part of the closing panel; and an opportunity for editors to opine on the suitability of editors. --QEDK () 12:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Request for comments on the 'political position' parameter of the political party infobox[edit]

(Initiated 36 days ago on 18 February 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Request for comments on the 'political position' parameter of the political party infobox? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting#RfC: Victim names[edit]

(Initiated 35 days ago on 19 February 2019) Could an experienced editor please review the consensus at Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting#RfC: Victim names? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

{{Not done}} - RFC is still active. There are reasonable arguments being advanced both for and against, so that the snowball closure rule does not apply. RFC left open. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Reply - @Robert McClenon:, the RFC has been open for over one week. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jax 0677: Indeed, it's been open for 16 days; but WP:RFCs typically run for thirty. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
That's what I tried to say at User talk:Jax 0677, and was told by Jax0677 to provide diffs and keep the discussion in one place, when I was trying to keep the discussion in a less public place. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Would it be possible to un-archive the RfC as the bot has archived it? Bus stop (talk) 07:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bus stop: You are allowed to close it even if its archived, but if you want I suggest manually copy-pasting it from the archive to the talk page, with a note explaining. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: I don't want to close it as I am a participant in it. I wanted it un-archived to allow further discussion. Bus stop (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Reply - @Bus stop:, I have moved the discussion back to the talk page, and changed the archive age to 30 days. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much @Jax 0677:, that looks perfect, to me. Bus stop (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

  • Reply - @Bus stop:, good to hear, we can close the discussion at the end of this week. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - @Robert McClenon:, this discussion, which is now close to 150 kB in size, has now run for 30 days, and can be closed or relisted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    Comment - User:Jax 0677 - I do not plan to close this RFC. For two reasons, both of which I do not need to disclose, I might not be neutral. Also, RFCs are not relisted. XFDs, which run for 7 days, may be relisted, but RFCs, which run for 30 days, are not relisted. They may be closed as No Consensus, and the closer may advise that a new RFC be posted, but they are not relisted in the way that XFDs are. Perhaps you are confusing different procedures. If so, please read the policies on Requests for Comments and Deletion and Deletion Debates. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    Comment - @Robert McClenon:, thanks for observing WP:COI. Note that I said "closed or relisted", which means not that it should ever be relisted, but that I am indifferent between the two. Regarding the 30 days minimum for RFC, I will keep it in mind in the future, but I never asked any closer to go against policy. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    User:Jax 0677 - See my comments on your talk page. No, I do not have a conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Robert McClenon: RfCs can be relisted - Cunard (talk · contribs) does it frequently - see WP:RFC#Length, paragraph beginning "To extend a current RfC". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    User:Redrose64 - Okay. As long as I am not told that I should be closing an RFC that hasn't run 30 days, and as long as I am not planning to close the Aurora RFC for two reasons that have nothing to do with COI, fine. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Robert McClenon: My understanding is that an RfC is no different from an ordinary content discussion in the following regard: It can be closed whenever it seems to have run its course, when all stated arguments have been sufficiently discussed and the likelihood of any significant new arguments is deemed to approach zero. That can be one week or twelve weeks or more (I recently closed an RfC after 8 days), and it is not connected to the amount of time before the bot de-lists the RfC. If most RfCs are closed after 30 days, that's only because (1) editors misinterpret the de-listing as "time to close" and (2) there is often resistance to closing "early" even if the circumstances warrant it, and most of us prefer to avoid that controversy. ―Mandruss  22:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment - It is true that the closer will need to distinguish between statements of position (!votes), some of them well-reasoned, and a lot of mostly marginal discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Gibraltar#Request for comment: population movement after 1704[edit]

(Initiated 35 days ago on 19 February 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gibraltar#Request for comment: population movement after 1704? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States and crime#RFC on including an embedded list of crimes committed by illegal immigrants in the U.S.[edit]

(Initiated 34 days ago on 19 February 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States and crime#RFC on including an embedded list of crimes committed by illegal immigrants in the U.S.? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Keith Urban#RFC about country in the lead[edit]

(Initiated 34 days ago on 20 February 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Keith Urban#RFC about country in the lead? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Good articles#RFC about assigning classes to demoted Featured articles[edit]

(Initiated 34 days ago on 20 February 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Good articles#RFC about assigning classes to demoted Featured articles? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Center for Immigration Studies#RfC Reboot: Should hate group designation be mentioned in the lead?[edit]

(Initiated 33 days ago on 20 February 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Center for Immigration Studies#RfC Reboot: Should hate group designation be mentioned in the lead?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party#RfC: Stamford Hill[edit]

(Initiated 33 days ago on 21 February 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party#RfC: Stamford Hill? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Should a 4th CSD for unused templates be added?[edit]

(Initiated 32 days ago on 21 February 2019) Would an administrator (as it's about deletion policy an admin is needed) please assess the consensus of this discussion and formally close it. Although consensus looks (to me as someone involved) clear, it does need formal closure to avoid a similar discussion in the near future. Thryduulf (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Electric smoking system#RfC on solid tobacco heated using external heat sources[edit]

(Initiated 32 days ago on 22 February 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Electric smoking system#RfC on solid tobacco heated using external heat sources? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Rent regulation#RfC about describing extent of disagreement[edit]

(Initiated 28 days ago on 25 February 2019) Would an experienced editor please assess whether there is a consensus at Talk:Rent regulation#RfC about describing extent of disagreement and close if so? Qzekrom 💬 theythem 23:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

On hold the discussion has been open for 10 days and is fairly divided; RfCs normally run for 30 days --DannyS712 (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Gab (social network)#Gab Dissenter merge[edit]

(Initiated 25 days ago on 1 March 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess consensus at Talk:Gab (social network)#Gab Dissenter merge and close the discussion? The last comment was ten days ago. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line[edit]

Deletion discussions[edit]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 5#People of African descent[edit]

(Initiated 108 days ago on 7 December 2018) Already relisted once. Discussion stalled since 25 February 2019. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 2#Category:Asian-American novels[edit]

(Initiated 83 days ago on 2 January 2019) Would an admin assess the consensus here. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion has meanwhile been relisted. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 6#Bridges by city & Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 12#Bridges by city in Ukraine[edit]

(Initiated 79 days ago on 6 January 2019) Would an admin assess the consensus here. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 20#Category:Organizations based in Oman[edit]

(Initiated 65 days ago on 20 January 2019) Discussion stalled since Feb 20. Looks to me like a straightforward close. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Evangelical Christianity[edit]

(Initiated 10 days ago on 15 March 2019) I feel that the discussion has received adequate input for a close to occur. A participant in the discussion who has !voted for deletion later relisted it, possibly in hopes for more delete !votes to potentially be posted. North America1000 09:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line[edit]

Other types of closing requests[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2019/February[edit]

(Initiated 30 days ago on 23 February 2019) Could an experienced editor relist these, or assess the consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2019/February? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Stub sorting proposals don't get relisted, they stay on the same monthly page until closed. See WP:WSS/P#Proposing new stub types – procedure item 6. I'm guessing that Pegship (talk · contribs), who usually closes these, is letting debate proceed for a while longer - after all, there are still some open from November 2018. Pegship, do you want somebody else to close these? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
If anyone can determine a consensus, they're welcome to close them. I've left them un-closed just to see if anyone has more to say; if not, I'll be happy to close them by end of March, which is not that long a stretch for the (much-depleted) troupe of stub sorters. Cheers! Her Pegship (speak) 22:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 26#Hip hop song stubs[edit]

(Initiated 28 days ago on 26 February 2019) Could an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 26#Hip hop song stubs? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand your impatience to have things closed. I initiated the CfD and I'm very happy to let it run its course until a volunteer has had time to adequately review and assess the discussion. Things do get backlogged once in a while. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 March#Module:Adjacent stations/sandbox[edit]

(Initiated 22 days ago on 4 March 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 March#Module:Adjacent stations/sandbox? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Thousands of Portals[edit]

(Initiated 12 days ago on 14 March 2019) Could an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Thousands of Portals? I think that every discussion has been open for one week. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals#2010s_single_stubs[edit]

(Initiated 8 days ago on 18 March 2019) Could an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals#2010s singlestubs? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)