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 February 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:User categories#Request for comment on our proposed policy for users remaining in redlinked categories

(Initiated 80 days ago on 6 January 2017) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus and close this RfC? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox unit#RfC: capitalization rule for name parameter

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox unit#RfC: capitalization rule for name parameter (Initiated 79 days ago on 8 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Workshopping an RfC on the inactivity policy

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Workshopping an RfC on the inactivity policy (Initiated 91 days ago on 27 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Fake news website#RfC: merges of related pages

A close here would be good as the articles in question are high-traffic. (Initiated 62 days ago on 25 January 2017) 121.218.198.209 (talk) 08:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

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 60 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)

Talk:Tom Brady#RfC: Should the lead mention Deflategate?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tom Brady#RfC: Should the lead mention Deflategate? (Initiated 61 days ago on 26 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:James O'Keefe#RfC about attributing accusations of selective editing and Talk:James O'Keefe#RfC on adding latest video about Trump inauguration

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:James O'Keefe#RfC about attributing accusations of selective editing (Initiated 68 days ago on 19 January 2017) and Talk:James O'Keefe#RfC on adding latest video about Trump inauguration (Initiated 67 days ago on 20 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Checkhalf.png Partially implemented--The 2nd RFC has been closed by Obsidi.Winged Blades Godric

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 137#RFC on WP:RESTRICT

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 137#RFC on WP:RESTRICT (Initiated 62 days ago on 25 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Ben Swann#RfC: description of RT (TV network) in Ben Swann

Is anyone willing to assess the consensus for this RfC (Initiated 48 days ago on 8 February 2017), which was just de-listed after 30 days? Thanks. (I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:50, 10 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 21 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)

Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos#Proposed merge with Dangerous (book)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos#Proposed merge with Dangerous (book) (Initiated 35 days ago on 21 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Reza Aslan#Aslan on Ahmadinejad

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Reza Aslan#Aslan on Ahmadinejad (Initiated 50 days ago on 6 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Emmett Till#Emmett Till lead sentence RFC

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Emmett Till#Emmett Till lead sentence RFC (Initiated 50 days ago on 6 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar#Request for Comment: Spanish Position Section of Article

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar#Request for Comment: Spanish Position Section of Article (Initiated 53 days ago on 3 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Would an experienced editor assess consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Future years- how far is too far? (Initiated 41 days ago on 15 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Demagogue#RfC on Donald Trump inclusion

Would an experienced editor assess consensus at Talk:Demagogue#RfC on Donald Trump inclusion (Initiated 37 days ago on 19 February 2017)? Thanks, – S. Rich (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Robert Sungenis#RfC re geocentrism

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Robert Sungenis#RfC re geocentrism (Initiated 36 days ago on 20 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Operation Storm#Using primary sources

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the consensus at Talk:Operation Storm#Using primary sources (Initiated 36 days ago on 20 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure--With the amount of editors involved in the RFC so stunningly low and opposing view-points among those who participated, gauging and writing a closure is a difficult task.Winged Blades Godric 15:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Vikings (TV series)#Links from the cast list section

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Vikings (TV series)#Links from the cast list section (Initiated 41 days ago on 15 February 2017)? There is disagreement about what the consensus is. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossier#Request for comment: opinion of Paul Gregory

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossier#Request for comment: opinion of Paul Gregory (Initiated 41 days ago on 15 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 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 22 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 39 days ago on 17 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: How to describe the popular vote outcome

(Initiated 30 days ago on 26 February 2017) - Would appreciate an experienced editor to assess consensus and close. Face-smile.svg Thank you very much!Mandruss  13:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 16#Series of joke user categories on User:Spiderpig662

(Initiated 71 days ago on 16 January 2017) Been open for two months and has consensus to delete, I'd say. pbp 03:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Wikipedia:Requested moves#Backlog

Close to 60 in backlog and elapsed. Dicklyon (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure&oldid=772673495"
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