Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

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 17 May 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 the 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]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World Rally#Request for Comment on table format[edit]

(Initiated 98 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)
  • @Thryduulf: — could I please ask that the RfC be closed with the provision for a new one to be opened? There have been some complaints that the RfC was "not done properly" and some recent comments appear to be trying to subvert the RfC process. In particular, there is a claim that a second consensus is needed: one to agree to a new table format and one to agree that the new format is needed. This appears to be moving the goalposts as theoretically editors could agree to a new format, but if they do not specifically state that they think the new format is needed, then those opposed to change could claim that there is no consensus at all and try to block the change even if they are in an absolute minority. The whole discussion has become a mess, with those opposed to change redirecting the conversation to the RfC process rather than discuss the RfC content as a way of dragging the conversation out and forcing a WP:NOCONSENSUS. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC: spelling of "organisation"/"organization" in descriptive category names[edit]

(Initiated 72 days ago on 4 April 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC: spelling of "organisation"/"organization" in descriptive category names? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

  •  Comment: This is a complicated close, there is VOTESTACKING involved, as well as multiple options, closing editor maybe willing to close it along with another administrator. --qedk (t c) 08:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 20#RfC: Should the following quote be added: "Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won’t be able to do anything."[edit]

(Initiated 56 days ago on 21 April 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 20#RfC: Should the following quote be added: "Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won’t be able to do anything."? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Republican Party (United States)#RfC: Justification for blocking of Merrick Garland[edit]

(Initiated 52 days ago on 25 April 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Republican Party (United States)#RfC: Justification for blocking of Merrick Garland? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 151#RfC: community general sanctions and deletions[edit]

(Initiated 49 days ago on 28 April 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 151#RfC: community general sanctions and deletions? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Survey (Commons category links)[edit]

(Initiated 42 days ago on 4 May 2019) It's nearing a month, and it would be good to have a close on this rather than it being archived unclosed. The discussion has died down, so closing it a little early wouldn't be a problem. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Facebook#RfC on inclusion on HuffPo source's claims[edit]

(Initiated 35 days ago on 11 May 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Facebook#RfC on inclusion on HuffPo source's claims? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 10:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox country#Metro area parameter[edit]

(Initiated 35 days ago on 12 May 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor evaluate the consensus in the discussion linked above? Interstellarity (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

On hold. This is an RFC and it's not been a month yet. Primefac (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@Primefac: How about now? Interstellarity T 🌟 21:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Um... 28 days is not a month? Primefac (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPN#RfC: Category:Climate change deniers[edit]

(Initiated 33 days ago on 14 May 2019) Would an administrator evaluate the consensus in the discussion linked above? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading[edit]

Deletion discussions[edit]

XFD backlog
  Mar Apr May Jun TOTAL
CfD 9 14 86 37 146
MfD 0 4 4 9 17
TfD 0 0 0 18 18
FfD 0 0 2 0 2
AfD 0 0 0 7 7

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Music Portals by Moxy[edit]

(Initiated 65 days ago on 12 April 2019) Will an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus here. -- Robert McClenon (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

This appears to be a train wreck. An attempt to send the train back to Square One failed due to involvement. It still either needs to be started over or teased apart. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Royal Australian Navy[edit]

(Initiated 60 days ago on 16 April 2019) Discussion stalled since 7 May 2019‎. Please will an uninvolved closer assess the consensus here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Korea[edit]

(Initiated 57 days ago on 19 April 2019) Discussion stalled since 5 May 2019‎. Please will an uninvolved closer assess the consensus here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion has resumed. Needs either a close or a formal Relist and attention to the need for a close in one more week. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Mixed bag of group portals[edit]

(Initiated 55 days ago on 22 April 2019) Please will an admin assess the consensus here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

This may be a train wreck. The closer may need to decide whether to close each of the nominations separately or to send this back to Square One. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/University portals[edit]

(Initiated 45 days ago on 1 May 2019) Please will an uninvolved closer assess the consensus here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

This may be a train wreck. The closer may need to decide whether to tease apart the nominations and close them or to send this back to Square One. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Input to this MFD is continuing. A formal Relist may be in order, confirming that the MFD has been relisted by remaining open. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Donald Trump[edit]

(Initiated 43 days ago on 4 May 2019) Will an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus here.

This is close and is likely to be controversial. A Relist may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 4 heading[edit]

Other types of closing requests[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 66#Application of WP:NFC#UUI #17[edit]

(Initiated 1100 days ago on 10 June 2016) Would an uninvolved user please close this discussion? I know it's an old discussion, but a user keeps insisting that nothing valid came from it and keeps edit warring against any edit based on that discussion. Therefore I believe it would be immensely helpful if this discussion were properly closed and thus consensus assessed, so that we know what is the best step to take next (e.g. more discussion).Tvx1 10:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussion
File:Bhutan FA.png was removed from Bhutan Football Federation by an administrator per Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 55#File:Bhutan FA.png. It has been re-added to the article on numerous occasions since that close and removed each time (not only by me) for reasons based on that discussion or for other WP:NFCCP reasons. Recently some IPs have been re-adding the file and it has continued to be removed (again not by only me). It was last removed by an administrator (who also participated in the WT:NFCC discussion you asking to be closed) when he protected the page. At present, the NFCR discussion (a community noticeboard) which led to the file being removed still is, in my opinion, in effect and the use of the file is still considered to be a clear NFCCP violation; so, removing it isn't edit warring (see WP:3RRNO); moreover, the WT:NFCC discussion you're referencing was a broader discussion related to the application of the WP:NFCC to this type of non-free use, not a discussion of any one particular file's non-free use. There have been similar discussions about this particular part of the NFCC over the years as well, and these can also be found in the WT:NFCC archives. in addition, I never insisted that nothing valid came from the WT:NFCC discussion at all so you got that wrong too just you got it wrong when you accused me of being POINTY (WP:POINT#Important note is not being POINTY); there was some progress made in moving towards a consensus in the latest discussion, but where we disagree is that I don't think a formal consensus was established to go back and undo not only the NFCR for this particular file but also the many other files which have been discussed at NFCR and FFD over the years and closed by different administrators basically the same way and have been continued to be closed the same way even after the discussion you're asking to be closed.
I also don't get why you've waited three years to suddenly start claiming this is now the consensus and why you've decided that this particular file was the focus of that consensus. As I previously posted, if you feel the NFCR for this particular file should be re-considered, the you should follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE; on the other hand, if you want to re-open the above-mentioned archived discussion or start an RFC, then you can do that at WT:NFCC. The {{Non-free reviewed}} template at the top of File:Bhutan FA.png clearly suggests that further discussion may be needed at FFD for other uses of the file, but you've not tried to seek out a consensus or at least a reaffirmation of what you perceive to be a consensus via FFD. FFD is a community noticeboard and a new consensus established there would most likely be enough to supersede the older NFCR one. If you want to do that, then it would at least be courteous to give the admin who closed the NFCR discussion first a heads up and see what they have to say, which is also something you've not tried doing.
Finally, one thing about this matter though is that this involves a change in the way a pretty major Wikipedia policy has been interpreted and applied to quite a number of files over the years by various administrators; so, I think it would be best for any new consensus to be something established via a well participated and publicized RFC because it will likely affect the way lots of non-free files (not only soccer team logos) can be used in lots of articles. The WT:NFCC discussion being referenced here is possibly something good to build upon, but I think a much stronger consensus should be established for something like this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
This is not a forum for discussion. Only for posting short requests for closure. A lengthy post like yours is not appropriate here. You requested to follow the proper procedures, so I thought I'd start with having the contested discussion properly closed by an uninvolved person to see where we're at. We can then move on from that. There is no point in keeping on hammering on WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. You know full well that they won't review a five-year-old close. Is not even the point of contention. I'm also amused on how quickly you reacted to my request here. Kind a looks like following my edits around. Let's just not discuss here at a board that is not meant for discussion.Tvx1 21:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Your original post here made a number of accusations against me; so, I responded. Perhaps it was a bit too much of a WP:WALLOFTEXT, but I responded. Now you're accusing me of hounding you for responding to these accusations when you yourself could've elected to discuss them at a more appropriate forum. Two administrators have now reverted you, once at the concerned article and once at the concerned file's page. You think it's pointless to ask you to discuss things with the administrator who closed a relevant discussion because it was from five years ago, but there's no expiration date on a particular close or CLOSECHALLENGE and it can be changed. At the same time, you don't think it's pointless to ask for an "uninvolved editor" to go back and close a discussion which was archived almost three years ago, when it clearly states at the top of the archived page: "This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page." As I already posted a number of times, you can re-start the more general discussion about this type of non-free use at WT:NFCC. Finally, if you or someone else wants to collapse my replies here as being "off topic", feel free to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Again, this is not a venue for discussion. The "do not edit" banner on the archive relates to continuing discussion there. Closing a discussion is a different matter. Keeping closed discussions and thus consensi for future is why these archives mainly exist in the first place. Thus there is nothing wrong requesting a proper close, mainly because there is a clear dispute about the outcome of this discussion. Now let's just wait for this request to be actioned.Tvx1 09:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I think that "Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page" kinda means exactly what it says. It doesn't mean someone goes in and "closes" an almost three-year old discussion thread, especially without any input from those involved. If the consensus is/was a clear as you're claiming, it would've almost be certainly applied to not just one file, but rather all files which were removed for the reasons given in that WT:NFCC discussion. It's also unlikely that an administrator, one who participated in the discussion, would've reverted you here and another administrator, who is experienced in non-free files and closes lots of FFD discussions, would've reverted you here. Both of these administrators saw your edit summaries linking to the WT:NFCC discussion and yet still reverted your edits. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
You want to collapse the above then fine; however, please strike the false accusations (a user keeps insisting that nothing valid came from it and keeps edit warring against any edit based on that discussion.) that you made against me in your original request then. This is certainly not the right place discuss such things or make such accusations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Manny_Pacquiao#Bible_Quote[edit]

(Initiated 627 days ago on 26 September 2017) Could an uninvolved editor please close this discussion regarding the material removed in this edit?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Racial policy of Nazi Germany#Merger?[edit]

(Initiated 415 days ago on 27 April 2018) Could an experienced editor please assess the status of a long-standing merge proposal between Racial policy of Nazi Germany and Nazism and race with several views, and in which discussion has been quiet for more than 4 months. Klbrain (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Shenzhen Bay Port#Shenzhen Bay Control Point should merge into Shenzhen Bay Port[edit]

(Initiated 128 days ago on 8 February 2019) No one really participated in the merge discussion. Someone had made off-topic comment, but the user Tony85poon, had been blocked for socking. Could an uninvolved editor please close this merge discussion. Matthew hk (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Remove "suspected perpetrator" field in Template:Infobox civilian attack[edit]

(Initiated 86 days ago on 22 March 2019) Would an uninvolved closer please assess the consensus here. TompaDompa (talk) 01:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2019/May[edit]

(Initiated 44 days ago on 3 May 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please close these proposals? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010#Disruptive editing on Taiwan regarding English variety[edit]

(Initiated 37 days ago on 10 May 2019) – Would an administrator assess this issue and take necessary action please. Ythlev (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC) @DannyS712: Stale discussions are exactly the ones that need admin involvement according to this page. Is no action to be taken against disruptive editing? Ythlev (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:WTC Cortlandt (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line)#Requested move 28 May 2019[edit]

(Initiated 18 days ago on 28 May 2019) I am asking if a non-involved admin can close this move request. It has been up longer than the allotted time of 7 days (going on 10 now) and there is no consensus to move it. No need for it to be open any longer as it is becoming a train wreck. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 20:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2019_June#Boeing_737_MAX[edit]

(Initiated 14 days ago on 1 June 2019) Uninvolved admin needed for this one. Calidum 05:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves[edit]

Wikipedia:Requested moves currently has a backlog that goes back about three weeks. Assistance to reduce the amount of entries in the backlog is appreciated. Steel1943 (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request an immediate indefinite IBAN of Hijiri 88[edit]

(Initiated 11 days ago on 4 June 2019) - we've had ~25 editors weighing in and 6 proposals so far. I weighed in, but don't think there's any consensus in each of the 6 proposals regarding action against Hijiri88 or Lubbad85. There are some boomerang votes in proposal 5 though. starship.paint (talk) 10:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

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