Wikipedia:Closure requests: Difference between revisions
| Line 113: | Line 113: | ||
: <u>A re-request of [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Needing more than one to close RfC discussion at WT:V]]. Also,</u> just in case: {{initiated|9 April 2017|done=no}} --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 16:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC); amended, 16:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC) |
: <u>A re-request of [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Needing more than one to close RfC discussion at WT:V]]. Also,</u> just in case: {{initiated|9 April 2017|done=no}} --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 16:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC); amended, 16:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC) |
||
:{{ping|Primefac}}:--Willing to collaborate?<small>If yes,feel free to drop a note on my talk!</small>[[User:Winged Blades of Godric|<span style= "color:green">''Winged Blades''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric| Godric]]</sup> 14:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC) |
:{{ping|Primefac}}:--Willing to collaborate?<small>If yes,feel free to drop a note on my talk!</small>[[User:Winged Blades of Godric|<span style= "color:green">''Winged Blades''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric| Godric]]</sup> 14:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC) |
||
::Yeah, sure. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 20:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC) |
|||
====[[Talk:Ned Kelly#RfC about the photo in the Capture and release of hostages section]]==== |
====[[Talk:Ned Kelly#RfC about the photo in the Capture and release of hostages section]]==== |
||
Revision as of 20:53, 11 June 2017
 | This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared. |
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.
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 30 September 2024); 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.
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.
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.
Requests for closure
Administrative discussions
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive954#User:Creuzbourg and User:K.e.coffman Talk:Hans-Ulrich Rudel (Initiated 2745 days ago on 25 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Mass creation of improperly referenced BLPs by User:SwisterTwister (Initiated 2725 days ago on 15 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
{{not done}}. Already archived without closure. --George Ho (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)- Wait, it can be edited: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive289#Mass creation of improperly referenced BLPs by User:SwisterTwister. --George Ho (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it? (Initiated 2709 days ago on 31 May 2017) Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 00:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line
RfCs
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2017#RfC rerun: House demolitions (Initiated 2771 days ago on 30 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved editor kindly assess the outcome of this consensus-building effort on the lead section of a controversial article? (Initiated 2758 days ago on 12 April 2017) — JFG talk 19:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Done THE DIAZ talk • contribs 17:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Day-care sex-abuse hysteria#RfC: Overall compliance with BLP and neutrality policies (Initiated 2750 days ago on 20 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Not done--Barring one editor, all supported that it is non-compliant due tocertain issues.Let the rest be discussed naturally on the talk.Winged Blades Godric 13:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Genocide#RfC (Initiated 2753 days ago on 17 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine#RfC: Proposed split (Initiated 2751 days ago on 19 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Abkhazia#Proposal for the Abkhazia Article (Initiated 2762 days ago on 8 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#RfC on Jeffrey Carr and IISS (Initiated 2753 days ago on 17 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–2016)#RfC about Al-Masdar (Initiated 2752 days ago on 18 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Plummer v. State#Request for Comment - Internet meme section - 1st revision (Initiated 2750 days ago on 20 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I would like a closure as the user is being disruptive and preventing the community's decision from being enforced. The consensus is also nearly unanimous. (Initiated 2742 days ago on 28 April 2017) nihlus kryik (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- The RfC has hit 30 days today. Calling it "nearly unanimous" is contentious and some arguments go against WP:PRIMARY, so there is enough to sift through that it might be advisable to seek an admin particularly well-versed in that policy.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Please, close this. (Initiated 2742 days ago on 28 April 2017). Erlbaeko (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Looking for additional closers to collaborate with our volunteer User:Winged Blades of Godric, who's already signed up. Not a close for the fainthearted, I would tend to think.—S Marshall T/C 22:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- A re-request of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Needing more than one to close RfC discussion at WT:V. Also, just in case: (Initiated 2761 days ago on 9 April 2017) --George Ho (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC); amended, 16:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Primefac::--Willing to collaborate?If yes,feel free to drop a note on my talk!Winged Blades Godric 14:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, sure. Primefac (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Would like an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ned Kelly#RfC about the photo in the Capture and release of hostages section (Initiated 2737 days ago on 3 May 2017)? Thanks, David.moreno72 09:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 139#RfC on the notability of flying aces (Initiated 2746 days ago on 24 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Noël Coward#RfC on 1944 controversy (Initiated 2746 days ago on 24 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Antonio Margarito#Request for Comment about Antonio Margarito's nationality (Initiated 2742 days ago on 28 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ned Kelly#RfC about the photo in the Capture and release of hostages section (Initiated 2737 days ago on 3 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Six-Day War#"In reaction to the mobilisation of Egyptian forces along the Israeli border in the Sinai Peninsula, Israel launched a series of preemptive airstrikes" (Initiated 2748 days ago on 22 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Khan Shaykhun chemical attack#Request for comment on Theodore Postol's views and responsibility for the attack (Initiated 2742 days ago on 28 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Jesus#Press Criticism - Wikipedia's Multiple Parallel Narratives (Initiated 2740 days ago on 30 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alone in the Universe#RfC: Studio Album Chronology (Initiated 2737 days ago on 3 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Otto Warmbier#Request for comments dated 28 April 2017 (Initiated 2742 days ago on 28 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted:-Winged Blades Godric 06:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bill Potts#Request for comment (Initiated 2744 days ago on 26 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Needs uninvolved closer please. (Initiated 2722 days ago on 18 May 2017) --George Ho (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- Done. Mz7 (talk) 20:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Someone please close this RfC on the use of {{sic}} tags in quotations. This should be an easy close, as it asks a simple and concise question and there are 9 responses, almost all of which answer the question at least indirectly, and there is hardly any debate. A closing by an uninvolved party would be very valuable here because the question is relevant to a longstanding conflict. (Initiated 2716 days ago on 24 May 2017)? Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved experienced editor assess the outcome of the consensus regarding the entry in the infobox of the article? (Initiated 2733 days ago on 7 May 2017)--Joobo (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line
Deletion discussions
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 14#Category:Television programming by language
(Initiated 2815 days ago on 14 February 2017) Stale discussion, no contributions after early April. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2812 days ago on 17 February 2017) Looks like there is consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- I agree, time to close this one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2783 days ago on 18 March 2017). -- Tavix (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2764 days ago on 6 April 2017). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line
Other types of closing requests
- (Initiated 2843 days ago on 17 January 2017) Stale discussion, needs someone to put it out of its misery please. GiantSnowman 08:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- Relisted for RFC to increase participation. --George Ho (talk) 09:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Another request to close this discussion. (Initiated 2741 days ago on 29 April 2017) --George Ho (talk) 07:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
the discussion has not been edited in over a year, and it has been brought up at AN/I that it was not closed. if this might be considered forumshopping, feel free to refuse. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 18:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Donald Trump talk discussion/survey close request
Can an admin please review this discussion and survey on Donald Trump talk here and close it? Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Taking a look!Am not even sure this qualifies for a closure.Winged Blades Godric 04:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The discussion is at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 60#Lead is now false. Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Dan Goodin wrote... UNDUE discussion/survey close request
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#Dan Goodin wrote... UNDUE and resumed here Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#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)
(Initiated 2741 days ago on 29 April 2017)* Please disposition the open discussions started in April 2017 at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals#Proposals.2C_April_2017. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Very overdue DRV discussion. I think there is a reasonably clear consensus, but I contributed to the discussion and so did many of the other regulars who close DRV discussions. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC).