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 May 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 an RfC opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion.

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.

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

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive984#Boundarylayer and abortion

(Initiated 29 days ago on 23 May 2018) Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive984#Boundarylayer and abortion? There is an interaction ban subsection. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Place new administrative discussions above this line

RfCs

Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#When is deletion of drafts and userpages acceptable?

(Initiated 52 days ago on 30 April 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#When is deletion of drafts and userpages acceptable?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Vitamin B3#RfC Do the refs support this content?

(Initiated 48 days ago on 4 May 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Vitamin B3#RfC Do the refs support this content?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Communist Party of China#Political descriptor RFC

(Initiated 47 days ago on 5 May 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Communist Party of China#Political descriptor RFC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hospitals#RfC on rules for rankings, reputation for hospitals and related institutions

(Initiated 45 days ago on 7 May 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hospitals#RfC on rules for rankings, reputation for hospitals and related institutions? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Busts of Cristiano Ronaldo#Request for comment: Should the article "Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo" exist in main space?

(Initiated 42 days ago on 9 May 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Busts of Cristiano Ronaldo#Request for comment: Should the article "Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo" exist in main space?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#New RFC on linking to Wikidata

(Initiated 42 days ago on 10 May 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#New RFC on linking to Wikidata? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi#RfC: criticism in the lead

(Initiated 42 days ago on 10 May 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi#RfC: criticism in the lead? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption#RfC: Criteria for granting IP block exemption

(Initiated 41 days ago on 10 May 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption#RfC: Criteria for granting IP block exemption? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Germanic peoples#lets remove the line about "Modern ethnic groups descended from the ancient Germanic peoples"

(Initiated 40 days ago on 11 May 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Germanic peoples#lets remove the line about "Modern ethnic groups descended from the ancient Germanic peoples"? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#RfC: Reliable sources

(Initiated 40 days ago on 11 May 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus for this RfC? It's been open for only 3 weeks but there have been no comments in the last 2 weeks and although the issue is contentious the consensus seems rather clear. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Joy Reid#RFC: The section on controversial blogposts is too long compared to the rest of the Careers section

(Initiated 40 days ago on 12 May 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Joy Reid#RFC: The section on controversial blogposts is too long compared to the rest of the Careers section? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Exercise#RFC Animal Exercise section

(Initiated 39 days ago on 12 May 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Exercise#RFC Animal Exercise section? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Douma chemical attack#RfC

(Initiated 37 days ago on 14 May 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Douma chemical attack#RfC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk:White Helmets (Syrian Civil War)#RfC: Roger Waters controversy

(Initiated 35 days ago on 16 May 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:White Helmets (Syrian Civil War)#RfC: Roger Waters controversy? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War#RfC:SMC and Islamists

(Initiated 35 days ago on 16 May 2018) This is a somewhat contentious case, and I'd appreciate someone uninvolved checking the consensus and closing. Much thanks, GPRamirez5 (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Colt AR-15#RfC: AR-15 style rifle subsection

(Initiated 35 days ago on 16 May 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Colt AR-15#RfC: AR-15 style rifle subsection? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Collaboration_in_German-occupied_Poland#RfC:_Jewish_Baiting_Techniques

(Initiated 25 days ago on 27 May 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus for the above mentioned RfC? There have been no new comments in 3 weeks. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 05:12, 20 June 2018 (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:Plymouth#Requested_move_-_17_May_2018

(Initiated 35 days ago on 17 May 2018) Could an uninvolved page mover or admin evaluate the consensus at Talk:Plymouth#Requested_move_-_17_May_2018? IffyChat -- 11:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Santa_Fe_High_School_shooting#List_of_victims'_names

(Initiated 31 days ago on 20 May 2018) Could an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Santa_Fe_High_School_shooting#List_of_victims'_names? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Move review of List of Presidents of the United States

(Initiated 11 days ago on 10 June 2018) Could an uninvolved admin, preferrably experienced with the page move review process, kindly evaluate the consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 June#List of Presidents of the United States? — JFG talk 11:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_WWE_personnel#POLL:_Should_205_Live_be_it's_own_section?

(Initiated 4 days ago on 16 June 2018) This was discussion initiated by User:IanPCP since the protection of article(don't go at today's initiation template), Continuously arguements regarding separating 205 Live section from RAW, WWE.com is authentic website as unsourced editings resulting in accusation against website for being glitch which is wrong, and providing such source which is not reliable and trivia. I request it for deletion immediately. Thanks.CK (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Broken nutshell: I have just re-read this. You state "I request it for deletion immediately" - you are at the wrong venue. The avenues open to you are described at WP:DELETE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump

There are a large number of open discussions on the talk page. I feel that some of them have reached consensus, including "Trump/Rodman image", "Apprentice - I removed a newly added paragraph about the show's ratings", and "Murals". Others, such as the "Religion" thread, may not have consensus yet. Could an experienced editor assess the open talk discussions, and enact those changes which have consensus, and close idle threads which will not reach a consensus for any changes? power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Most of these things don't need closing by a third-party; they will be auto-archived after 7 days of silence. "Rodman" and "Apprentice" look settled; "Murals" is just FORUM; "Religion" is messy, not sure what an uninvolved closer could say except "please raise an RfC". — JFG talk 07:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure&oldid=846850277"
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