Wikipedia:Closure requests: Difference between revisions
ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 22. (BOT) |
Request political AfD close →Requests for closure |
||
| Line 187: | Line 187: | ||
==== [[Talk:Michael Cox (Catholic bishop)#Requested move 22 March 2016]] ==== |
==== [[Talk:Michael Cox (Catholic bishop)#Requested move 22 March 2016]] ==== |
||
This [[WP:RM]] discussion has somehow been open since March with no closure. {{Initiated|22 March 2016}}--[[User:Cuchullain|Cúchullain]] [[User talk:Cuchullain|<sup>t</sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cuchullain|<small>c</small>]] 20:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC) |
This [[WP:RM]] discussion has somehow been open since March with no closure. {{Initiated|22 March 2016}}--[[User:Cuchullain|Cúchullain]] [[User talk:Cuchullain|<sup>t</sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cuchullain|<small>c</small>]] 20:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC) |
||
==== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump email controversy]] ==== |
|||
Would an uninvolved administrator kindly assess consensus on this stale political AfD? Thanks. — [[User:JFG|JFG]] <sup>[[User talk:JFG|talk]]</sup> 07:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 07:48, 19 November 2016
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 19 June 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 experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Can other site accounts ever be linked to (Initiated 2941 days ago on 30 June 2016)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm thinking a three-person closure (Including at least one user who handles non-public information on a regular basis) would be advisable for this discussion. I'll volunteer with the admission that I am probably one of the worst people to close this, so I'll defer to basically any other team of three. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Cunard and Tazerdadog:
Am up for it. Deryck C. 13:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)- Ok, so we need at least one more, and someone who has handled private info on a regular basis. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
The WP:Signpost has just run two issues that discuss the issue at hand extensively. This is likely to generate a lot extra participation in the debate in the coming week or so, which will hopefully generate new arguments and possibly affect the outcome. I think we should hold on for at least two more weeks before closure. Deryck C. 23:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- Two weeks might be excessive, but a week is certainly a good idea. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Cunard and Tazeradog: Okay, probably time to get people to close this. Any nominations on "someone who has handled private info on a regular basis"? I have handled personal information for Wikimedia before, but that's in the context of organising meatspace Wikimedia events. Deryck C. 12:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging Euryalus (talk · contribs) and HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs), oversighters who have posted in WP:ANRFC recently. Would one of you be able to join Tazerdadog and Deryck Chan in closing the discussion? Or do you know how to reach out to others who have "handled private info on a regular basis"? Cunard (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping, but I should decline the offer given I've directly contributed to the debate on a couple of occasions, as well as the Signpost editorial comment section. The best ways to reach others who handled routinely handled private information. would be a neutrally-worded email to functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org, which will reach current CU's and Oversighters plus a small collection of former arbs. Someone who hasn't taken part in the debate would hopefully then step forward to help with the close. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging Euryalus (talk · contribs) and HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs), oversighters who have posted in WP:ANRFC recently. Would one of you be able to join Tazerdadog and Deryck Chan in closing the discussion? Or do you know how to reach out to others who have "handled private info on a regular basis"? Cunard (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Cunard and Tazeradog: Okay, probably time to get people to close this. Any nominations on "someone who has handled private info on a regular basis"? I have handled personal information for Wikimedia before, but that's in the context of organising meatspace Wikimedia events. Deryck C. 12:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- There appears to still be an open request for closure of this here. - jc37 22:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of best-selling albums in the United States#Request for comment on use of sources (Initiated 2922 days ago on 19 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 66#RfC for NFCC#8 exemptions for currency and USPS stamps (Initiated 2913 days ago on 28 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Really need an administrator to close this one, as it's a contentious issue that has been discussed several times. Softlavender (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Miniature Australian Shepherd#Renewed merge discussion (Initiated 2894 days ago on 16 August 2016)? There is a clear consensus for a merge. However, editors are split on merging Miniature Australian Shepherd to Miniature American Shepherd or merging Miniature American Shepherd to Miniature Australian Shepherd. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Neonicotinoid#RFC: Inclusion of a sentence on a primary study (Initiated 2887 days ago on 23 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template#RfC: Conversion of route diagram templates to Template:Routemap format (Initiated 2885 days ago on 25 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Menelik II#RfC on Menelik's "Reign as Emperor" split out (Initiated 2882 days ago on 28 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Michael Greger#Request for comments on SBM source (Initiated 2878 days ago on 1 September 2016)? I recommend a formal close per this comment about how this dispute has been ongoing for years:
Note past discussions Turns out this dispute goes back a few years :Talk:Michael_Greger/Archive_1#Don_Matesz_mention, and most of the talk page discussion this year is about it, starting at Talk:Michael_Greger/Archive_1#SBM_source. It's been brought up at BLPN twice: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive238#Michael_Greger and just today at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive238#Michael_Greger_-_claims_of_BLPSPS_violation. Given what I've found, there may be more as editors haven't been clearly acknowledging past discussions, as with this RfC.
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 22#Proposed rewording in instructions for listing: when to use <noinclude> (Initiated 2876 days ago on 3 September 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- The consensus seems apparent enough, so I don't think a formal close is strictly necessary (all the more so because the discussion has now been automatically archived), but it would be be good to have someone uninvolved confirm that. – Uanfala (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Request speedy close on Talk:Lane splitting#RFC: looking for outside opinions on dispute about wording
Requesting speedy close of this RfC. The initiator has not made a reasonable effort to resolve this very petty dispute over wording. One of the three editors in the discussion has not yet replied. The actual reasons for the disagreement were only just outlined fully in just over 24 hours ago. I have not yet had time to post the full list of citations that I alluded to mere hours ago. Neither side has had time to suggest any compromise wording. All of this violates the instructions at WP:RfC to make an effort before starting an RfC. Any outside editor who is drawn into this petty dispute is going to find it annoying that such drama has been created over this obscure issue.
Please close for now and at least give it a week to see if we can work it out before pestering the wider community with this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Floquenbeam (talk · contribs) protected the talk page. Floquenbeam, would you review this closure request and determine whether the RfC should be speedy closed or kept open? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:AlMaghrib Institute#RFC: Should the article mention Qadhi's statements on the Holocaust from 2001? (Initiated 2860 days ago on 19 September 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template#RfC: Conversion of route diagram templates to Template:Routemap format, including the tangential discussion of {{RDTr}} at the bottom (Initiated 2885 days ago on 25 August 2016)? Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 12:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Needs accurate evaluation for consensus. --George Ho (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
RfC Closure
Please go here to address my concerns on a user that keeps undoing an RfC closure. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 06:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- UPDATE: Could an admin please re-close this RfC while also assessing consensus in related sections throughout the talk page? It would be great to get resolution before election day. Thanks! Prcc27🎃 (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
This is not a simple closure of an RfC.There are multiple RfC's going on about the same topic, along with up to a dozen other discussions, the topic of which has been under discussion since ~ Aug 23, 2016. The discussion involves revisiting a specific editing criterion established in 2012 that applies to the U.S. presidential general elections generally (not just this article).This needs to be handled by (at least) a couple of uninvolved admins andif there is a closing, I recommend closing all RfCs/discussions and starting over again after the election (after the editors who are supporting particular candidates are gone). Here's a brief history of the discussions I wrote up as an involved editor, but as unbiasedly as I could write it. [1] Sparkie82 (t•c) 21:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)- Note: The issue under discussion is about the criterion used to include candidates in the infobox prior to the election -- after the election, there is a different set of criteria because vote totals are available then -- so although the discussion would be
mute[moot] for this particular article after the electiion, the issue of whether of not to change the pre-election criterion would still be used for future articles. (Plus the discussion would be easier after the election without all of the candidate hacks involved.) Sparkie82 (t•c) 21:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)- @Antony-22: has just revealed a number of discussions on my talk page [2] from 2012 which were not previously mentioned on the 2016 talk page (where this subject RfC is) and which appear to be dispositive as to the much of the issue being discussed in all those RfC's/discussions. I've posted a recommendation at the subject RfC to close all the RfC's/discussions related to the issue in light of this "new" information. Sparkie82 (t•c) 09:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: The issue under discussion is about the criterion used to include candidates in the infobox prior to the election -- after the election, there is a different set of criteria because vote totals are available then -- so although the discussion would be
- Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States presidential election, 2016#A call for consensus on McMullin and Castle ( pre-election infobox inclusion criteria ) (Initiated 2846 days ago on 3 October 2016)? See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive937#RfC Closure. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved administrator assess the consensus and please close this RFC? Thank you Talk:Ruger Mini-14#Rfc: Add major incidents to article? CuriousMind01 (talk) 11:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:James Watson#RfC on comments leading to Watson's resignation (Initiated 2852 days ago on 27 September 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2014 Oso mudslide#Request for comment (Initiated 2851 days ago on 28 September 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Twin paradox#Request for comment on neutrality of statement about paradoxical symmetrical ageing (Initiated 2854 days ago on 25 September 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox observatory#Request for comments: Satisfy verifiability related RfC? (Initiated 2853 days ago on 26 September 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)#RFC: Proposal to rework Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Disambiguation (Initiated 2891 days ago on 19 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Axis: Bold as Love#RfC: Should hard rock, jazz, and rhythm & blues be kept in the infobox? (Initiated 2847 days ago on 2 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2016 India–Pakistan military confrontation#Requested move 1 October 2016 (Initiated 2848 days ago on 1 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Category talk:People of Jewish descent#Survey (Initiated 2846 days ago on 3 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:1#What should the articles from 1 to 100 be moved to? (Initiated 2843 days ago on 6 October 2016)? Please consider Talk:1#RFC: Should articles "1" to "100" be about numbers instead of years? in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment by involved editor. The closing statement of the earlier RfC stated:
the consensus is that the pages 1-100 will be moved only if a consensus can be reached as to the name of the articles
. If there's assessed consensus for a title, please consider suggesting a period of time in which pre-move preparations can (need to) be made before the batch moves. This will involve new conditional logic such as year nav/dab templates. If it's assessed there's no consensus, these template updates will not be necessary. Take this with a grain of salt; I'm an involved editor, thanks — Andy W. (talk) 05:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC) - Comment by involved editor. Concur with Andy. There would be a lot of work required in the year-related templates, although some needs to be done anyway, and the first RfC was contingent on a WP:CONSENSUS as to the move targets, which is not related to a majority. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment by OP – Work on the templates has started and is not very difficult if we stick to changing the targets of years 1–100. There was a rather strong consensus in the original RfC for limiting the move to this range. Titles of year articles should be consistent but several name variants are already handled by redirects, so there is no harm in whichever solution is adopted. — JFG talk 09:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor close the Talk:Bitcoin#RfC: shall the sourced information on transaction fees be restored?? Thanks. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Ladislav Mecir: There's been minimal involvement in that RfC, and it hasn't run 30 days yet. Sam Walton (talk) 12:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Please relist Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_3#Template:United_States_Postal_Service, as the only two people other than myself that have commented are the same two individuals that commented on my talk page, whose discussion is now closed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
This discussion forum currently has no backlog! (11:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC))
There's 100+ open discussions, some well over two months old. The vast majority of these are easy closures. Would appreciate it if an admin could spend an hour or so clearing these out. Thanks! -FASTILY 08:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Please disposition Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 October 21#File:Alan kurdi smiling playground.jpg. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
No substantial backlog right now, but it's quite likely that the backlog will grow again at some point in time. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
There is a fairly even split in the discussion and some complicated WP:ACCESSIBILITY arguments, so it would probably be best if an admin were to close it. Betty Logan (talk) 10:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion on whether to list as Samantha Bee as Canadian or Canadian-American is now just a back and forth argument between Sport and politics and myself. Since it's clear we won't agree and no other editor as commented in over a week, we need an outside editor to end the discussion. JDDJS (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
RfC will be 30 days old on 21 November (ignore signatures near the top as they are re-signs or material added significantly after RfC start). FWIW, there is a consensus to close now, due to no activity, at Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#Call for close. Thanks in advance! ―Mandruss ☎ 05:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
This WP:RM discussion has somehow been open since March with no closure. (Initiated 3041 days ago on 22 March 2016)--Cúchullain t/c 20:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved administrator kindly assess consensus on this stale political AfD? Thanks. — JFG talk 07:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)