Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Ball1.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 20 August 2017); 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 an RfC opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion.

Ball2.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.

Once a discussion listed on this page has been closed, please add {{Close}} or {{Done}} and a note to the request here, after which the request will be archived.

Contents

Requests for closure

Administrative discussions

Place new administrative discussions above this line

RfCs

Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#RfC: Should usage of vertical and horizontal templates fall within WP:CITEVAR

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#RfC: Should usage of vertical and horizontal templates fall within WP:CITEVAR (Initiated 82 days ago on 29 June 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

 Working Winged Blades Godric 10:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries#Split section on Iran

A long overdue discussion on a sensitive topic, which should be closed by a neutral party. Thanks.GreyShark (dibra) 11:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Cold War II#Name of section about Russia and its rival(s)

An uninvolved editor should close this discussion please. Thanks. (Initiated 50 days ago on 31 July 2017) George Ho (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Arabs#Proposal

Would an uninvolved administrator please assess and close this discussion? It has been going on for months and was apparently marred by some canvassing [1]. The discussion has also hit a standstill, and an administrator has just indicated that there is no clear denouement [2]. Thanks. (Initiated 250 days ago on 12 January 2017) Soupforone (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Westworld (TV series)#RfC on Potential Spoilers

Would an uninvolved administrator please close this discussion, (Initiated 30 days ago on 19 August 2017)? It is obvious that there will be no clear outcome. The issue in question concerns the interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines and if no clear answer is given soon, the content dispute will perpetuate. Thank you. -- (Radiphus) 02:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Radiphus, this request was premature, as the RfC just expired and more editors have weighed in. When requesting a close, you not should bias the close with an "It is obvious that there will be no clear outcome." comment. And it's usually best to wait until the RfC has expired. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
It is up to the administrators to decide when is the right time to close the RFC. I simply requested a formal closure by an administrator, is there something wrong with that? Also, i did not bias the close, i simply explained why i am making this request, per the noticeboard's instructions: 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. I can not understand all this suspiciousness. -- (Radiphus) 10:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Template talk:Donald Trump series#RfC: Selection and display of articles about Russia

(Initiated 47 days ago on 3 August 2017) Would an uninvolved editor kindly assess consensus and close the discussion? — JFG talk 17:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 111#RfC: Proposal for WP:NFOOTY guideline

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 111#RfC: Proposal for WP:NFOOTY guideline (Initiated 44 days ago on 6 August 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Lindy West#RFC on the inclusion of Women's Media Center Award on Lindy West page

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Lindy West#RFC on the inclusion of Women's Media Center Award on Lindy West page (Initiated 47 days ago on 3 August 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Google's Ideological Echo Chamber#RfC about including "Sources cited in the memo" on this page

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Google's Ideological Echo Chamber#RfC about including "Sources cited in the memo" on this page (Initiated 41 days ago on 9 August 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Mosul (2016–17)#RfC Battle of Mosul end date

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Battle of Mosul (2016–17)#RfC Battle of Mosul end date (Initiated 57 days ago on 24 July 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Trump campaign–Russian meeting#RfC: Should the article include material about the Senate Judiciary Committee investigation of Fusion GPS cofounder Glenn Simpson?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Trump campaign–Russian meeting#RfC: Should the article include material about the Senate Judiciary Committee investigation of Fusion GPS cofounder Glenn Simpson? (Initiated 49 days ago on 1 August 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk:0.999.../Archive 19#Request for comment: Which version neutrally summarizes the cited sources with appropriate weight?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:0.999.../Archive 19#Request for comment: Which version neutrally summarizes the cited sources with appropriate weight? (Initiated 60 days ago on 21 July 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Pride (2014 film)#RfC about Historical accuracy section

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pride (2014 film)#RfC about Historical accuracy section (Initiated 41 days ago on 9 August 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Page mover#RfC: Labeling page mover closures

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Page mover#RfC: Labeling page mover closures (Initiated 64 days ago on 17 July 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 141#RFC regarding the current DYK Rule 3A "interesting to a Broad audience"

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 141#RFC regarding the current DYK Rule 3A "interesting to a Broad audience" (Initiated 40 days ago on 10 August 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk:State atheism#RfC: What to do with this article?

(Initiated 10 days ago on 9 September 2017) Second trainwreck of a pseudo-RfC back-to-back on the same day and page by same author. Does not ask a clear question, consists of one-sided PoV pushing (in a WP:NOT#ADVOCACY / WP:TRUTH / WP:GREATWRONGS vein). This should be shut down like the last one. If there's an issue to RfC here, it should be posed by a neutral third party who's actually read WP:RFC. (Initiated 12 days ago on 7 September 2017)  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  22:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

First trainwreck, I think. I already nullified the second one, which was subsequently removed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm the author of the first trainwreck. My intention was to open a policy-inquiry-commentary (not any POV - I had a hard time deciding which policy to forward for the RfC, thus my citing them all, which may come across as that), but it became a content-dispute. There are problems with that article, so if you're going to close the RfC, please preserve its discussion if you can. Thank you. THEPROMENADER   15:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Upgrade WP:DRAFTIFY to policy or guideline and disallow moves to Draft- or userspace without discussion or consent

(Initiated 42 days ago on 8 August 2017) Restoring this from archives as it has been unarchived and someone has requested a formal closure of it. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Template talk:Birth date and age#RfC about whether there should be an infant month-day and super year-day parameter

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Birth date and age#RfC about whether there should be an infant month-day and super year-day parameter (Initiated 36 days ago on 14 August 2017)? Thanks.--Nevéselbert 19:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Create a new Event Coordinators user group

An uninvolved editor should close this discussion please. Thanks. (Initiated 32 days ago on 18 August 2017) --George Ho (talk) 09:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

 Working--Winged Blades Godric 09:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line

Deletion discussions

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 9#Dan Goodin wrote... UNDUE discussion/survey close request

(Initiated 133 days ago on 8 May 2017) A long discussion has accompanied a slow-motion revert war over the inclusion of a journalist's cited views, which may be UNDUE. The talk thread is at Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 9#Dan Goodin wrote... UNDUE and resumed here Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 11#Goodin redux. Could an Admin please review and close these discussions so as to settle whether there is consensus to include the comments of Mr. Goodin in the article? Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 00:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 227#Review of a decision to remove an external link per ELNEVER

Where do we stand on accepting or rejecting bach-cantatas.com as a source for Wikipedia content? (Initiated 102 days ago on 9 June 2017). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Bias re: Linda Sarsour

WP:FORUMSHOP – started less than 24 hours after opening discussion on article talk page. User who started discussion has not shown good-faith effort to build consensus on the article talk page (Talk:Linda Sarsour#Criticism section), or to understand the relevant parts of WP:BLP. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 August

An uninvolved editor should close a couple ongoing discussions please. Thanks. (Initiated 40 days ago on 10 August 2017) --George Ho (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Alt-left#Merge proposal discussion

(Initiated 26 days ago on 24 August 2017) A recent deletion nomination for the article Alt-left was closed as no consensus. During the discussions a consensus of editors was formed to begin a merge discussion if the AFD concluded as "No consensus", which it did. Because of the controversial nature of both the article and the dispute, a request is being made for an admin to close this discussion when the duration of the proposal has ended. The rationale of the proposal is strictly the formed consensus and is why the question is left as a simple question to merge or not (there is no policy or guideline to adhere to that requires a fuller, or more detailed rationale). There is no 30 day discussion period required and may be closed when a consensus has been reached.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 66#The use of the term "illegal alien"

An article is currently under full protection due to the edit war that spawned this discussion. I suspect it would be helpful to give this some official closure. Many thanks. Samsara 12:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#Guidance against interleaving replies

Guideline change proposal that has gone nowhere but an ever-growing morass of argument about side topics, and circular ones about the original topic. There's clearly no consensus, nor could one conceivably emerge from this, so it should just be closed as unproductive (I would NAC close it myself, but commented in it). (Initiated 36 days ago on 14 August 2017)  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  08:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Ariana Grande discography#Jason' Song (Gave It Away)

Requesting an uninvolved editor to look at this discussion involving a dispute of whether a particular song should be classified as a single. A user initiated a RfC on September 8th, but withdrew it on September 11th; the user then initiated a WP:3O, which was responded to (Although recent discussion has been under the RfC heading, the official RfC request was withdrawn). (I would close this myself, but I commented on the request, though I didn't opine one way or the other.) At the moment, it appears that there is currently only one user holding out; I believe it would be helpful for the discussion to be formally closed to keep it from dragging on unnecessarily. (Initiated 42 days ago on 8 August 2017) 青い(Aoi) (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#USS John S. McCain (DDG-56) discussion

The process at DR has stalled without prospect of resolution, with the moderator having recused themself as a result of representations by the OP at this page. The matter has been extensively discussed and reasonably notified, as evidenced in the thread. I submit that the matter has been sufficiently debated to determine a consensus but the matter requires an independent adjudication to make a close. It is my belief that to protract this matter further would cause unnecessary disruption without any commensurate benefit in preserving natural justice. This course has been suggested at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#USS John S. McCain (DDG-56). Accordingly, I request that an uninvolved editor provide a close wrt the substantive issue - whether it is appropriate to mention in a ship's article the response of a state (the PRC) to FONOPS. I am notifying this request at DR. Cinderella157 (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

 Working--In my powers as a DRN volunteer and per Robert's proposal of shifting volunteer-responsibility, I could technically close this or continue the discussion.Just give me some time to go through the entire content etc..Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 14:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Discussions at DRN do not normally get formal closure here. However, I would suggest that this be treated as a request for administrative attention because one of the editors doesn't like the consensus that has been reached. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric and @Robert McClenon, this discussion is continuing at Talk:USS John S. McCain (DDG-56) and the admin, Buckshot06 has taken an interest in resolving the matter. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure&oldid=801387033"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA