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.

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 26 March 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

RfCs

Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Investigating COI policy (2nd request)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Investigating COI policy (Initiated 88 days ago on 27 January 2017)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I've added a part of the overall discussion, Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Concrete_proposal_1, separately below. Without comment on what the results should be, I believe that the overall discussion will be difficult to close, but that Concrete proposal 1, should be very easy to close, and, as the original proposer, I'd rather not see it get lost in the shuffle. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Link to a request for a three-person close of the RfC: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Re-requesting closure of Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Investigating COI policy. Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RFC on Russian Interference Opening - Conclusion versus accused

Could an experience and uninvolved editor close the following RFC. It relates to the wording in both Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections and United States presidential election, 2016. (Initiated 48 days ago on 7 March 2017) Casprings (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Casprings: After just over four days? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Yeah, you are right.Casprings (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
@Redrose64: I think now it's time. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we have enough time and enough people have taken part in the discussion.Casprings (talk) 11:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 132#Future years- how far is too far?

Would an experienced editor assess consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 132#Future years- how far is too far? (Initiated 69 days ago on 15 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Charles Murray (political scientist)#RfC about SPLC identifying Murray as a White Nationalist

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Charles Murray (political scientist)#RfC about SPLC identifying Murray as a White Nationalist (Initiated 50 days ago on 6 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories.

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories. (Initiated 67 days ago on 17 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#RfC: Should Infobox single and Infobox song be merged?

Requesting uninvolved closer. (Initiated 49 days ago on 7 March 2017) --George Ho (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 137#RfC: LTA Knowledgebase

Could an uninvolved user please assess the consensus of this discussion and close it? You'll have to drag it out of the archive in order to do so. Thanks! (Initiated 79 days ago on 5 February 2017) Mz7 (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Sebastian Gorka#RfC regarding antisemitism

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sebastian Gorka#RfC regarding antisemitism (Initiated 56 days ago on 28 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:International Justice Mission#Request for comment on placement of criticism

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:International Justice Mission#Request for comment on placement of criticism (Initiated 48 days ago on 8 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted due to low participation. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement#RfC about lead

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement#RfC about lead (Initiated 50 days ago on 6 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted:-Winged Blades Godric 06:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Kara-Khanid Khanate#RfC about the languages in the lead

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kara-Khanid Khanate#RfC about the languages in the lead (Initiated 46 days ago on 10 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:West Montrose, Ontario#RfC about the photo of the buggy

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:West Montrose, Ontario#RfC about the photo of the buggy (Initiated 50 days ago on 6 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:United States presidential election, 2020#RFC: Should the Speculative Candidates sections be removed?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States presidential election, 2020#RFC: Should the Speculative Candidates sections be removed? (Initiated 34 days ago on 22 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:2017 Olathe, Kansas shooting#RfC about adding victim's family's reaction to "Reactions" section

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2017 Olathe, Kansas shooting#RfC about adding victim's family's reaction to "Reactions" section (Initiated 32 days ago on 24 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 191#RfC: Substantiating the choices of examples (MOS:EXAMPLES)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 191#RfC: Substantiating the choices of examples (MOS:EXAMPLES) (Initiated 45 days ago on 11 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Harassment#RfC regarding "non-editors"

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Harassment#RfC regarding "non-editors" (Initiated 35 days ago on 21 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Drafts#RfC: Draft classifier template

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Drafts#RfC: Draft classifier template (Initiated 41 days ago on 15 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:American Automobile Association#RfC on list of AAA regional clubs

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:American Automobile Association#RfC on list of AAA regional clubs (Initiated 35 days ago on 21 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:James O'Keefe#RfC about attributing accusations of selective editing

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:James O'Keefe#RfC about attributing accusations of selective editing (Initiated 96 days ago on 19 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Microscope#Request for comment on ultramicroscope

Although there is clear consensus, there is also high contention, so would an uninvolved editor, please close this? (Initiated 24 days ago on 1 April 2017)? Thanks, --2601:648:8503:4467:D82F:EA1A:BEAB:EF93 (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 138#RfC about marking the Featured portals process as "historical"

(Initiated 25 days ago on 30 March 2017) Would an experienced editor please see what, if any, further conclusions can be drawn from this RfC beyond the historicalisation of the Featured Portals process. Thanks. BencherliteTalk 15:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories.

(Initiated 67 days ago on 17 February 2017) Would an uninvolved admin please assess the consensus at this RfC and perform a close? Thank you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#WP:COSMETICBOT update

Needs uninvolved closer. (Initiated 30 days ago on 26 March 2017) George Ho (talk) 07:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 March 26

Several entries are open despite the discussion having concluded. (Initiated 30 days ago on 26 March 2017) K.e.coffman (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


Other types of closing requests

Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2017_March#List of coats of arms of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom

(Initiated 26 days ago on 30 March 2017) Started in March with the last comment being on April 3rd. Well over the seven day listing period. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure&oldid=777107721"
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