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 22 March 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]

Talk:Electric_smoking_system#Older_versions_or_expanded_version[edit]

(Initiated 98 days ago on 12 January 2019)

The RfC expired a long time ago. The proposal is to replace the entire current article with the entire expand draft. QuackGuru (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Suki Waterhouse#RfC on Personal life[edit]

(Initiated 98 days ago on 13 January 2019) Issue/suggestion not clearly stated at the outset, multiple edits in question, low participation, overall a mess. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)[edit]

(Initiated 81 days ago on 29 January 2019) Can an uninvolved admin close this discussion and evaluate the consensus please? Mstrojny (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  • On hold the last contribution to the discussion was today and there is no overwhelming consensus either way. Thryduulf (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 54 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)
@DannyS712: Circling back - do you think there's a strong enough consensus here? Qzekrom 💬 theythem 05:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
@Qzekrom: its only run for 30 days, and since I'm not familiar with the topic I'd prefer not to close it myself. But, leaving it here means it will get closed eventually. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I probably do have enough knowledge to close this RfC but will likely not get to it for a few days (at least) so if someone else is ready feel free to jump me and do it but know it's on someone's radar. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Fascism#RfC: Should "right wing" be added to definition of fascism[edit]

(Initiated 45 days ago on 6 March 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fascism#RfC: Should "right wing" be added to definition of fascism? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The RfC opened on March 6th and was closed by bot after 30 days. petrarchan47คุ 02:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
It wasn't "closed" - Legobot always removes a {{rfc}} tag thirty days after the next timestamp following the tag. This is not closure; bots are not able to judge consensus so they cannot close a discussion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Oh, thanks. This is my first time asking for an RfC close, my terminology is wrong. petrarchan47คุ 01:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:List of music considered the worst#RFC for Sgt. Pepper's inclusion[edit]

(Initiated 45 days ago on 6 March 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of music considered the worst#RFC for Sgt. Pepper's inclusion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Gender feminism#Request for comment: merge proposal[edit]

(Initiated 43 days ago on 8 March 2019) Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Gender feminism#Request for comment: merge proposal? Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC on WRC table format[edit]

(Initiated 42 days ago on 10 March 2019) Could an experienced editor please assess and formslly close this discussion? It has been raised on multiple talk pages and wound up at DRN, where an admin negotiated an RfC. The 30 day period for an RfC has expired (the discussion naturally died out two weeks beforehand), but an editors are interpreting the discussion differently. The RfC really needs a third party to summarise it, please. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

  • comment IMO this discussion is not finished. Yes, there was a 30day period of silence, but it continues now. So I'd say don't close it yet. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: the discussion had run its course and naturally died out after two weeks. You only objected when I moved to implement changes to articles based on the RfC discussion. By your own admission (in the RfC itself no less), you had forgotten about the discussion, so you cannot claim it is ongoing. To do so makes it look like you are stalling to prevent the consensus from being reached, especially given the way you have misrepresented the discussion (by claiming no support for a proposal when at least three editors had supported it) and have tried to draw on the opinions of editors from old discussions outside the RfC to support your position. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Otto Warmbier#Request for comment - public reactions to detainment and death[edit]

(Initiated 39 days ago on 13 March 2019) A contributor has suggested that this RfC (which has now had the RfC tag removed by bot as the standard 30-day discussion period has elapsed) should be reviewed and closed by an experienced editor or admin. Last comments were on 6 April. Muzilon (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposal: Expand G5 to include undisclosed paid editing[edit]

(Initiated 38 days ago on 13 March 2019) Five proposals regarding CSD criterion G5 and paid editing, only three of which received any significant input. RfC tag removed by a bot today, last comment was 5 April. Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric is closing... --DannyS712 (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Motion picture content rating system#RfC: Should we install a color scheme with 9 colors in the comparison table?[edit]

(Initiated 30 days ago on 21 March 2019) I am requesting a technical "Close without prejudice" of this RFC. The RFC is effectively a re-run of an earlier one at Talk:Motion_picture_content_rating_system/Archive_1#RfC: Should the comparison table in the article use a color scheme accessible to color-blind users?, where the consensus was to select a scheme accessible to color-blind readers. The latest incarnation of the RFC was initiated by an editor now blocked for sockpuppetry. The RFC itself is contaminated by sockpuppetry, as well as putting forward a proposal that deviates from Wikipedia policy. Betty Logan (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I cannot close this because I am WP:INVOLVED, but I urge the closer to look at two separate issues here: (i) is there a need for additional level(s); (ii) is there a need to alter the colour scheme of the existing levels in order to fit in the desired new level(s). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC on List of Photographers[edit]

(Initiated 30 days ago on 22 March 2019) Would an experienced editor kindly assess, summarize, and formally close the discussions on multiple aspects of edits to the List of Photographers article? There has been some vigorous discussion, but things have died down now. The RfC is structured into multiple sections, so I encourage the closer to address each section individually. Qono (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line[edit]

Deletion discussions[edit]

XFD backlog
  Jan Feb Mar Apr TOTAL
CfD 0 2 34 38 74
TfD 0 0 37 39 76
AfD   0
MfD   27

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

 Note: the Bridges by city CfD was relisted to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 8#Bridges by city. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 Done by DeltaQuad, who closed the "by city" CfD (diff), and B dash, who closed the "by city in Ukraine" CfD (diff). --DannyS712 (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 1#Category:Establishments in New York City by year[edit]

(Initiated 51 days ago on 1 March 2019) Discussion stalled since 16 March. Please would an admin assess the consensus here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 7#Module:Find sources template pages[edit]

(Initiated 44 days ago on 7 March 2019) This TfD has been open for over two months, with the last comment more than a month ago. Could someone please close it? * Pppery * has returned 19:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line[edit]

Other types of closing requests[edit]

Talk:Plurality_voting#Merge_with_First-past-the-post_voting[edit]

(Initiated 436 days ago on 9 February 2018) Discussion has been open since February 2018, is it alright if someone were to look at this? AtlasDuane (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#HuffPost article on WP COI editing[edit]

(Initiated 37 days ago on 15 March 2019) Could an experienced editor assess the consensus here? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Caryn Marooney#Merger proposal[edit]

(Initiated 33 days ago on 18 March 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Caryn Marooney#Merger proposal? — Newslinger talk 02:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Clarification of WP:3RR[edit]

(Initiated 15 days ago on 6 April 2019) Could an experienced editor assess the consensus here? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Spygate (conspiracy_theory_by_Donald_Trump)#Requested_move_12_April_2019[edit]

(Initiated 9 days ago on 12 April 2019)Could an admin please close this? It is a contentious issue.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


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