Wikipedia:Closure requests: Difference between revisions
→Talk:Melania Trump#Alma mater: pinging Robert |
→Talk:Melania Trump#Alma mater: of what |
||
| Line 115: | Line 115: | ||
====[[Talk:Melania Trump#Alma mater]]==== |
====[[Talk:Melania Trump#Alma mater]]==== |
||
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at [[Talk:Melania Trump#Alma mater]] {{Initiated|19:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)|done=yes}}? Thanks, [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 07:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC) |
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at [[Talk:Melania Trump#Alma mater]] {{Initiated|19:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)|done=yes}}? Thanks, [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 07:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC) |
||
{{Done}} - The RFC was closed prior to 30 days having run, with a No Consensus finding. (Did someone step outside in the Southern Hemisphere and conclude that it was snowing No Consensus?) The closure was then reversed (re-opened), but 30 days did not run, and there still is no consensus. I am only closing the RFC to conclude that there was no consensus but the RFC was not allowed to run its course. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC) |
:{{Done}} - The RFC was closed prior to 30 days having run, with a No Consensus finding. (Did someone step outside in the Southern Hemisphere and conclude that it was snowing No Consensus?) The closure was then reversed (re-opened), but 30 days did not run, and there still is no consensus. I am only closing the RFC to conclude that there was no consensus but the RFC was not allowed to run its course. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC) |
||
:: Hey, [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert]]. May you fix the indentation please? It [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure&oldid=789822991#Talk:Melania_Trump.23Alma_mater looks awkward]. Thanks. --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 21:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC) |
:: Hey, [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert]]. May you fix the indentation please? It [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure&oldid=789822991#Talk:Melania_Trump.23Alma_mater looks awkward]. Thanks. --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 21:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::[[User:George Ho]] - Indentation of what? The handling of the RFC was awkward. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 21:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC) |
|||
====[[Talk:Ethereum#RFC on lede paragraph]]==== |
====[[Talk:Ethereum#RFC on lede paragraph]]==== |
||
Revision as of 21:50, 9 July 2017
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 7 August 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/IncidentArchive956#Military college dispute getting out of hand (Initiated 2643 days ago on 12 June 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Abequinn14 (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Already done User blocked by Alex Shih. Snuge purveyor (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Because of the nature of this ANI — and what resulted from the closure by a non-administrator of an interpersonal ANI related to it — closure by an Administrator is essential. Thank you. Pyxis Solitary talk 13:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Already done by Alex Shih. Snuge purveyor (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
This is an interpersonal ANI that the OP prevented from being closed. It has deteriorated. Constructive responses by neutral editors has ended. (Initiated 2624 days ago on 30 June 2017) Pyxis Solitary talk 13:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Already done by Alex Shih. Snuge purveyor (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line
RfCs
Please, close this. (Initiated 2688 days ago on 28 April 2017). Erlbaeko (talk) 14:36, 31 May 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 2688 days ago on 28 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 2683 days ago on 3 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Needs uninvolved closer please. Thanks. (Initiated 2654 days ago on 1 June 2017) --George Ho (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Teamwork closure is requested by the RfC proposer Guy Macon at "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Closers needed for a very sensitive RfC." Therefore, I shall abide to request for teamwork and wait for two or three closers interested. --George Ho (talk) 12:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- While a team of closers were found (in the afore-linked thread), current plans are to relist it.So deferred for 30 days(ideally)!Winged Blades Godric 18:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Also, the discussion was moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy, so I changed the link in the header. --George Ho (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump#RfC: Possible POV of §Authoritarian tendencies (Initiated 2672 days ago on 14 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ali Hassan Salameh#RfC on whether the article should include more detailed background about his father (Initiated 2667 days ago on 19 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hasan Salama#RfC on what aspects of Hasan Salama's life should be mentioned in the lead (Initiated 2667 days ago on 19 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:American_Revolutionary_War/Archive_13#RfC_about_infobox_changes (Initiated 2680 days ago on 6 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC) Edited to update link to correct archive page. Snuge purveyor (talk) 06:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Dismissal of James Comey/Archive 2#Deletion of name info (Initiated 2671 days ago on 15 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bahá'í Faith#Request for Comment: Lead Section (Initiated 2669 days ago on 17 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Could somebody kindly assess consensus at Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#RfC: Should the article include events related to Trump's tweets that the Obama administration has wiretapped him? Early close requested because discussion has ceased for a while and the debated issue is kind of moot. (Initiated 2659 days ago on 27 May 2017) — JFG talk 05:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Melania Trump#Alma mater (Initiated 2640 days ago on 14 June 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Done - The RFC was closed prior to 30 days having run, with a No Consensus finding. (Did someone step outside in the Southern Hemisphere and conclude that it was snowing No Consensus?) The closure was then reversed (re-opened), but 30 days did not run, and there still is no consensus. I am only closing the RFC to conclude that there was no consensus but the RFC was not allowed to run its course. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hey, Robert. May you fix the indentation please? It looks awkward. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- User:George Ho - Indentation of what? The handling of the RFC was awkward. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hey, Robert. May you fix the indentation please? It looks awkward. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ethereum#RFC on lede paragraph (Initiated 2665 days ago on 21 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ali Hassan Salameh#RfC on whether the article should include more detailed background about his father (Initiated 2667 days ago on 19 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Vladimir Lenin#RfC regarding the parallel drawn between the cult of personality of Lenin, and that of George Washington (Initiated 2660 days ago on 26 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:White Helmets (Syrian Civil War)#RfC: Disposing a body (Initiated 2659 days ago on 27 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:McMahon–Hussein Correspondence#RfC (Initiated 2655 days ago on 31 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
An uninvolved closer is needed please. Thanks. (Initiated 2624 days ago on 1 July 2017) --George Ho (talk) 05:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
An uninvolved closer is needed please. Thanks. (Initiated 2624 days ago on 1 July 2017) --George Ho (talk) 05:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
An uninvolved closer is needed please. Thanks. (Initiated 2624 days ago on 1 July 2017) --George Ho (talk) 05:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
An uninvolved closer is needed please. Thanks. (Initiated 2628 days ago on 27 June 2017) --George Ho (talk) 05:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Middlebury, Connecticut#RfC about pushpin map in infobox (Initiated 2648 days ago on 7 June 2017)? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2648 days ago on 6 June 2017) The RfC template has been removed by Legobot because the discussion has petered down. However, a formal close is highly desirable, as the result of this RfC potentially affects thousands of articles on academic journals. An uninvolved closer is sorely needed. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Randykitty: It wasn't removed because the discussion has petered down, it was removed because thirty days (actually 30 days and 48 minutes) had elapsed since the
{{rfc}}was started. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)- I stand corected. Nevertheless, a formal close seems higly desirable. --Randykitty (talk) 12:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Done Tazerdadog (talk) 18:49, 8 July 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 2761 days ago on 14 February 2017) Stale discussion, no contributions after early April. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2944 days ago on 15 August 2016) The discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 May 30#File:WernerHerrmann.jpg has been relisted SEVEN FIVE times since August 2016. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - I have relisted all of the simple discussions that I can disposition. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Comment – OTRS agent, I left a statement on the discussion about the status of that file's claimed pending ticket. seb26 (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2716 days ago on 31 March 2017) -- Tavix (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line
Other types of closing requests
- (Initiated 2789 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 2687 days ago on 29 April 2017) --George Ho (talk) 07:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 9#Dan Goodin wrote... UNDUE discussion/survey close request
(Initiated 2677 days ago on 8 May 2017) 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/Archive 9#Dan Goodin wrote... UNDUE and resumed here Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 11#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 2808 days ago on 28 December 2016). Request emphatic and clear closure directing the complainant to drop their quest. I would further appreciate their being strongly warned that they will be blocked, or actually, better, for them to be blocked for a month or two or six now, for pursuing it, given extensive and clear feedback they have received already. They made their preferred edit today (which I reverted). --doncram 20:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- I volunteer that it is not necessary for a closer to go further than simply considering the merits and closing the discussion. You can skip considering any block or other action; please excuse my wishful thinking about that, it is really not necessary (and by the way there has not been any further re-implementation of the inappropriate deletion). There is unanimous agreement by all but one editor that the quotation is fine, so it should be an easy call. --doncram 01:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Done Tazerdadog (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2668 days ago on 17 May 2017) Would appreciate it if an uninvolved editor would review and close the discussion on coverage of the "Scalability debate" in the Bitcoin article. N2e (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Where do we stand on accepting or rejecting bach-cantatas.com as a source for Wikipedia content? (Initiated 2645 days ago on 9 June 2017). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)