Wikipedia:Closure requests: Difference between revisions
→Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC: necessary experience? |
|||
| Line 145: | Line 145: | ||
: {{In progress}} Closing RfC discussion for recording consensus. {{On hold}} Until 2 more editors are willing to close. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|<span style="color:#b7e">QEDK</span>]] ([[User talk:QEDK|<span style="color:#fac">後</span>]] ☕ [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|<span style="color:#fac">桜</span>]])</span> 17:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC) |
: {{In progress}} Closing RfC discussion for recording consensus. {{On hold}} Until 2 more editors are willing to close. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|<span style="color:#b7e">QEDK</span>]] ([[User talk:QEDK|<span style="color:#fac">後</span>]] ☕ [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|<span style="color:#fac">桜</span>]])</span> 17:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC) |
||
:{{ping|QEDK}} I'd like to help - only 1 more needed --[[User:DannyS712|DannyS712]] ([[User talk:DannyS712|talk]]) 19:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC) |
:{{ping|QEDK}} I'd like to help - only 1 more needed --[[User:DannyS712|DannyS712]] ([[User talk:DannyS712|talk]]) 19:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC) |
||
:: {{ping|DannyS712}}: sorry, nothing personal against you, but I'm not quite convinced you have the necessary experience for this task. What we need here are highly experienced editors who are deeply familiar with the relevant content policies and with the intricacies of content creation in POV-sensitive areas. Sorry, but you've been around only for six months and I can find no record of you dealing with policy issues of this complexity before. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 08:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
==== Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line ==== |
==== Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line ==== |
||
Revision as of 08:05, 21 March 2019
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.
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 14 July 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 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.
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 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.
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.
Requests for closure
Administrative discussions
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 4 heading
RfCs
(Initiated 2039 days ago on 13 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Suki Waterhouse#RfC on Personal life? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
On hold its pretty evenly split and hasn't had very much discussion --DannyS712 (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Relisted. Marking as {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2030 days ago on 22 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Subscription required#RfC: Replace template with CS1/2 mechanism where possible? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2028 days ago on 23 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel#RfC On DeLong Blogpost? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- On hold its pretty evenly split and hasn't had very much discussion --DannyS712 (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Relisted. Marking as {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2028 days ago on 24 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Review aggregators#RfC: Should the "As of" template, or some similar wording indicating that the score may have changed over time, be used for review aggregators in articles?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2023 days ago on 29 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nobuhiro Watsuki#Request for comments about 2017 charges? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2023 days ago on 29 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Killing of Aya Maasarwe#Description of Aya nationality? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
On holdComment no consensus yet - "Israeli" has 10 !votes while "Palestinian-Israeli" and "Palestinian citizen of Israel" each have 6. Qzekrom 💬 theythem 15:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2022 days ago on 30 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Marriott International#RFC: citation style. Matthew hk (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2021 days ago on 30 January 2019) I'm looking for the closure of the RFC if consensus has been reached. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 15:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2019 days ago on 1 February 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Telesur? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 06:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2018 days ago on 3 February 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:World War I#German Leaders and Hussein bin Ali? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2010 days ago on 11 February 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Venezuelanalysis? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 04:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2007 days ago on 13 February 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Gawker? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 10:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2004 days ago on 16 February 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Bustle? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 08:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2001 days ago on 19 February 2019) Could an experienced editor please review the consensus at Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting#RfC: Victim names? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} - RFC is still active. There are reasonable arguments being advanced both for and against, so that the snowball closure rule does not apply. RFC left open. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Reply - @Robert McClenon:, the RFC has been open for over one week. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Jax 0677: Indeed, it's been open for 16 days; but WP:RFCs typically run for thirty. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- That's what I tried to say at User talk:Jax 0677, and was told by Jax0677 to provide diffs and keep the discussion in one place, when I was trying to keep the discussion in a less public place. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to un-archive the RfC as the bot has archived it? Bus stop (talk) 07:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Bus stop: You are allowed to close it even if its archived, but if you want I suggest manually copy-pasting it from the archive to the talk page, with a note explaining. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712: I don't want to close it as I am a participant in it. I wanted it un-archived to allow further discussion. Bus stop (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Reply - @Bus stop:, I have moved the discussion back to the talk page, and changed the archive age to 30 days. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you very much @Jax 0677:, that looks perfect, to me. Bus stop (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712: I don't want to close it as I am a participant in it. I wanted it un-archived to allow further discussion. Bus stop (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Bus stop: You are allowed to close it even if its archived, but if you want I suggest manually copy-pasting it from the archive to the talk page, with a note explaining. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to un-archive the RfC as the bot has archived it? Bus stop (talk) 07:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- That's what I tried to say at User talk:Jax 0677, and was told by Jax0677 to provide diffs and keep the discussion in one place, when I was trying to keep the discussion in a less public place. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Jax 0677: Indeed, it's been open for 16 days; but WP:RFCs typically run for thirty. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Reply - @Robert McClenon:, the RFC has been open for over one week. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Reply - @Bus stop:, good to hear, we can close the discussion at the end of this week. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1995 days ago on 25 February 2019) Would an experienced editor please assess whether there is a consensus at Talk:Rent regulation#RfC about describing extent of disagreement and close if so? Qzekrom 💬 theythem 23:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- On hold the discussion has been open for 10 days and is fairly divided; RfCs normally run for 30 days --DannyS712 (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1992 days ago on 1 March 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess consensus at Talk:Gab (social_network)#Gab Dissenter merge and close the discussion? The last comment was ten days ago. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1992 days ago on 28 February 2019) Since I am an involved editor, could an experienced editor please review the consensus at Talk:Johann Mickl#Community reassessment? I beleive the general consensus is to delist the article. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2005 days ago on 15 February 2019) Would a panel of three experienced editors (or administrators if they so choose) please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC? The closure will be a bit of a minefield, with many simultaneous discussions taking place in the various sub-sections. The closure is already overdue since the closure date was set as 17 March and listed at the top of the page from the outset, a date which has now passed. This RfC was conducted in accordance with the following ARBCOM motion: [1], and its closure should conform to the motion as well. Closers might want to additionally take a look at discussions on the corresponding talk page for the RfC Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC. - Wiz9999 (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
In progress Closing RfC discussion for recording consensus. On hold Until 2 more editors are willing to close. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 17:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)- @QEDK: I'd like to help - only 1 more needed --DannyS712 (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712:: sorry, nothing personal against you, but I'm not quite convinced you have the necessary experience for this task. What we need here are highly experienced editors who are deeply familiar with the relevant content policies and with the intricacies of content creation in POV-sensitive areas. Sorry, but you've been around only for six months and I can find no record of you dealing with policy issues of this complexity before. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line
Deletion discussions
(Initiated 2049 days ago on 2 January 2019) Would an admin assess the consensus here. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_6#Bridges_by_city & Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_12#Bridges_by_city_in_Ukraine
(Initiated 2045 days ago on 6 January 2019) Would an admin assess the consensus here. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2032 days ago on 20 January 2019) Discussion stalled since Feb 20. Looks to me like a straightforward close. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2075 days ago on 7 December 2018) Already relisted once. Discussion stalled since 25 February 2019. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line
Other types of closing requests
(Initiated 2516 days ago on 23 September 2017) could an uninvolved editor assess the consensus on this long-standing merge proposal, discussed at Talk:Team Rubicon#Proposed merge with William McNulty (relief organization founder). Klbrain (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1997 days ago on 23 February 2019) Could an experienced editor relist these, or assess the consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2019/February? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Stub sorting proposals don't get relisted, they stay on the same monthly page until closed. See WP:WSS/P#Proposing new stub types – procedure item 6. I'm guessing that Pegship (talk · contribs), who usually closes these, is letting debate proceed for a while longer - after all, there are still some open from November 2018. Pegship, do you want somebody else to close these? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- If anyone can determine a consensus, they're welcome to close them. I've left them un-closed just to see if anyone has more to say; if not, I'll be happy to close them by end of March, which is not that long a stretch for the (much-depleted) troupe of stub sorters. Cheers! Her Pegship (speak) 22:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)