Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:

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 closure is 30 days (opened on or before 30 July 2014); 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.

Requests for closure[edit]

Template talk:Citation#RFC: Same rules for CS1 and Citation[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Citation#RFC: Same rules for CS1 and Citation (initiated 30 April 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

As a side-effect of using Module:Citation/CS1 to render the Citation template, all the warning messages issued for Citation Style 1 will now be issued for Citation. (Many of these warning messages are not turned on by default yet.) This means that editors who use the Citation template will have to consult Help:Citation Style 1 to determine the acceptable parameter values. Does the user community ratify this change?

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This does not appear to require administration, thus I recommend finding a template-editor to assess and close it. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  02:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:USRepSuccessionBox#RfC regarding ceremonial seniority position[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:USRepSuccessionBox#RfC regarding ceremonial seniority position (initiated 27 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Not enough input to close properly. I notified WP:USA for additional participants. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  02:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#RfC North Tipperary and South Tipperary categorical tree structure[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#RfC North Tipperary and South Tipperary categorical tree structure (initiated 28 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment Now archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Archive 17#RfC North Tipperary and South Tipperary categorical tree structure. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 2#Category:Comprehensive schools in London[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 2#Category:Comprehensive schools in London? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 2#Category:Several categories related to women clergy[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 2#Category:Several categories related to women clergy? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3 (initiated 26 June 2014)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. In your close, please consider the previous discussions related to archive.is:

  1. Wikipedia talk:Link rot#Archive.is (initiated 17 September 2012)
  2. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 104#Replacing WebCite citations with archive.is citations (initiated 24 July 2013)
  3. Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard/Archive 8#RotlinkBot approved? (initiated 18 August 2013)
  4. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RotlinkBot (initiated 18 August 2013)
  5. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive812#Mass rollbacks required (initiated 17 September 2013)
  6. Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC (initiated 20 September 2013)
  7. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive813#Sophisticated mass vandalism from IP ranges? (initiated 2 October 2013)
  8. Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 119#Proposal to Reduce the API limits to 1 edit/30 sec. for logged out users (initiated 2 October 2013)
  9. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive255#WP:Archive.is RFC request for admin review of closure (initiated 31 October 2013)
  10. MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2014/03#archive.is/T5OAy (initiated 23 November 2013)
  11. MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December 2013#archive.is (initiated 3 December 2013)
  12. MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Now what to do? and permanent link (initiated 27 February 2014)
  13. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive261#Archive.is headache (initiated 8 May 2014)
  14. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Archivedotisbot (initiated 10 May 2014)
  15. Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 2 (initiated 2 June 2014)
  16. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive263#Archive.is (initiated 25 June 2014)
  17. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive845#Serious BLP violations by Kww, Hasteur, Werieth, and possibly others (initiated 30 June 2014)
  18. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive846#New Account Using AWB to Remove Links to archive.is based "the RFC" (initiated 1 July 2014)
  19. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/Werieth#Followup discussion about archive.is links (2 July 2014)

Here are discussions with the Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC closer:

  1. User talk:Hobit#Archive.is RFC closure unclear and permanent link (initiated 31 October 2013)
  2. User talk:Hobit#Question re: Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC and permanent link (initiated 11 November 2013)
  3. User talk:Hobit#Archive.is and permanent link (initiated 12 February 2014)
  4. User talk:Hobit#Archive.is matter and permanent link (initiated 19 May 2014)

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

There is discussion going on, but I think those can be moved to somewhere else.Forbidden User (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it might be best to wait a little bit more for results from Chris's email. I know I'm waiting to update my views based on it as well as the email correspondense link. I imagine I am not the only one. PaleAqua (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
It's been almost a week with no real discussion and no updates. Withdrawing my wait request. PaleAqua (talk) 06:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Creation Museum#accreditation[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Creation Museum#accreditation (initiated 14 July 2014)? The discussion at Talk:Creation Museum#Resolved? indicates that 22 editors participated in the discussion. Because of the discussion's complexity (one editor called it "Longest RfC discussion ever"), I believe a closure would be helpful in determining and recording the consensus. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Autism#Individuals with autism and Talk:Autism#Compromise proposal: "people who are autistic"[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Autism#Individuals with autism (initiated 8 July 2014) and Talk:Autism#Compromise proposal: "people who are autistic" (initiated 4 August 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable for the 4 August discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Second was Symbol declined.svg Closed  by Drmies (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 19:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Cite doi#RfC: Should Template:cite doi cease creating a separate subpage for each DOI?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Cite doi#RfC: Should Template:cite doi cease creating a separate subpage for each DOI? (initiated 9 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Israeli raids on UNRWA schools#RfC: Should this article contain the section "other UNRWA incidents"?[edit]

Can someone close this? Nobody has replied for some days, and the consensus is unclear. This is perhaps because I did not phrase the question precisely. Kingsindian (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Legend (disambiguation)#Merger proposal[edit]

This discussion seemed routine at first, but a couple of late comments make it less than obvious that this should be a routine close. I.E., The first seven respondents all gave support, but the last two articulated only partial support for specific reasons that may need consideration. Discussion was opened a full week ago.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (comics)#Merge redundant guideline material[edit]

Unopposed (if low-participation) cleanup proposal has run for three months. Way long enough for objections to have been raised. While a non-admin could close this, is probably better if done administratively, due to these being (nominal) guidelines subject to frequent contentious tooth-gnashing.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  15:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Oathkeeper#Proposal[edit]

Requesting a formal close. I believe consensus on this is fairly clear-cut, but given the controversial long-term nature of the overall discussion it's probably best to have an uninvolved editor handle the assessment just to keep everything on the up and up. DonIago (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of Admin RFC Closure (removal of book by Koenraad Elst in Further reading section of an article)[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of Admin RFC Closure (removal of book by Koenraad Elst in Further reading section of an article) (initiated 26 August 2014) after there has been sufficient participation and sufficient time has passed? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ice Bucket Challenge participants[edit]

Open for over one week, sending now to get ahead of bottleneck. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Topic ban on TheFallenCrowd for Arthur Kemp?[edit]

Although the editor was blocked for 3 months there is still the outstanding discussion of a topic ban. 12 supports for a topic ban (some wanting to go further), one against, one for a block. Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)