Wikipedia:Closure requests: Difference between revisions
Correcting new entry |
|||
| Line 132: | Line 132: | ||
{{Initiated|00:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)|type=RfC}} Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal:_Procedural_removal_of_admin_rights_who_have_not_used_the_admin_tools_for_a_significant_period_of_time_(maybe_5_years)]]? Thanks, [[User:Interstellarity|Interstellarity]] ([[User talk:Interstellarity|talk]]) 15:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC) |
{{Initiated|00:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)|type=RfC}} Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal:_Procedural_removal_of_admin_rights_who_have_not_used_the_admin_tools_for_a_significant_period_of_time_(maybe_5_years)]]? Thanks, [[User:Interstellarity|Interstellarity]] ([[User talk:Interstellarity|talk]]) 15:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC) |
||
=== Donji Kraji === |
==== [[Talk: Donji Kraji#Version of Article]] ==== |
||
{{Initiated| |
{{Initiated|23:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)|type=RfC}} Would an experienced editor assess the situation at [[Talk:Donji_Kraji#Version of Article]]? Thanks, [[User:Ceha|Ceha]] --[[User:Ceha|Čeha]] <small>([[User talk:Ceha|razgovor]])</small> 12:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC) |
||
==== Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading ==== |
==== Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading ==== |
||
Revision as of 13:56, 11 January 2020
 | 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, 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 18 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 the 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
(Initiated 1851 days ago on 24 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive314#Request for reclosure of RfC on Tulsi Gabbard's BLP (Assad/Modi)? This is an RfC close review that was archived without closure on 6 October 2019. Like deletion reviews, RfC close reviews should be formally assessed to determine whether the RfC close was correct or incorrect. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1740 days ago on 12 November 2019) - discussion has died down. 19 votes on 12 November, 20 votes on 13 November, 10 votes on 14 November. Just 4 votes from 15 November to 22 November. Total vote count 53. starship.paint (talk) 06:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 4 heading
RfCs
(Initiated 1794 days ago on 18 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Super Audio CD#Rfc: Meyer-Moran paper from 2007 in lead section? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1790 days ago on 23 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease#RfC: Redirects of "chronic bronchitis" and "emphysema"? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1765 days ago on 18 October 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 community sentiment on binding desysop procedure? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- I cannot close this as I participated in the discussion. No clue as to how any closer will handle the consensus (if any) in the workshop section. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1757 days ago on 26 October 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Aaron Hernandez#RfC on the Brain Damage section? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1749 days ago on 3 November 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfC: Merge F9 into G12 redux? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: archived without closure to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 75#RfC: Merge F9 into G12 redux --DannyS712 (talk) 18:57, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1742 days ago on 10 November 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia#RfC which version should stay? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1742 days ago on 10 November 2019) I put the above discussion up a while ago and then forgot about it. It doesn't seem there were any opposes (though there was 1 "indifferent"). Could someone please close this, and implement the changes if they agree there is consensus in favor of the proposal? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1741 days ago on 11 November 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps#RfC regarding claimed territorial boundaries of a state? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1738 days ago on 14 November 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist#Request to prevent "Wikidata" titles from being created? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1738 days ago on 14 November 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mottainai#RFC on article versions? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- {{not done}} as an RfC participant contested this closure request on my talk page. I do not want to argue about whether this closure request should have been made. I am marking this as closure request withdrawn, without prejudice against another editor filing another closure request. Courtesy pinging Francis Schonken (talk · contribs), who thanked me for listing this closure request at ANRFC. Cunard (talk) 09:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1738 days ago on 14 November 2019) Relisted, interpretation of the outcome appears to be still in dispute, so formal closure would be the best way forward imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, Francis Schonken (talk · contribs). I have commented out the not done template so that the bot does not archive this closure request. Cunard (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'll second the request. I took a break and came back to it, and if anything the matter is mired in more interpersonal drama + sourcing questions now than it was before. It will take an uninvolved party to try to get through to an actual consensus (and it may simply be that consensus did not emerge and that another, more structured discussion is needed as a followup. Or maybe it's just giving me too much of a headache, and someone else will be able to sense a clear consensus buried in it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1737 days ago on 15 November 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sharyl Attkisson#RfC on self-sourcing? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1735 days ago on 17 November 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of countries and dependencies by area#RFC Should Palestine be numbered?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1713 days ago on 9 December 2019) Could an uninvolved and experienced editor please assess the consensus and close the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Korea#RfC:_Including_concerts/tours_in_articles_about_Korean_musicians? Thank you. Hyuny Bunny (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1710 days ago on 12 December 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Grayzone? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 10:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1704 days ago on 18 December 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal:_Procedural_removal_of_admin_rights_who_have_not_used_the_admin_tools_for_a_significant_period_of_time_(maybe_5_years)? Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1716 days ago on 5 December 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the situation at Talk:Donji_Kraji#Version of Article? Thanks, Ceha --Čeha (razgovor) 12:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading
Deletion discussions
| V | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 23 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 15 | 21 | 36 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 4 heading
Other types of closing requests
(Initiated 2623 days ago on 12 June 2017) Any experienced and uninvolved administrator can close this gigantic discussion. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 04:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1865 days ago on 10 July 2019) Would an uninvolved editor or administrator please review this discussion? Thank you. Note: This discussion started as an RFC, but the RCF was malformed, so it is not an RFC. Just a regular discussion. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 05:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1836 days ago on 8 August 2019) Although I am an uninvolved editor, I cannot be able to assess the consensus of this discussion. Any experienced editor can do that. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 14:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1810 days ago on 3 September 2019) Merge discussion started in September 2019 that has had no further comments in the past almost-two-months. -- /Alex/21 01:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1747 days ago on 5 November 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump#Veracity graphs? You are awesome. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1735 days ago on 17 November 2019)
Please determine the consensus (if any) at Talk:2020 Formula One World Championship#Map. Thank you,
SSSB (talk) 09:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1722 days ago on 30 November 2019) Please review, asses and close this discussion on the NPOV noticeboard Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#White privilege.Keith Johnston (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: Now archived at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 80#White_privilege. comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1714 days ago on 8 December 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Naval Air Station Pensacola shooting#Add names of victims who died? Thank you! ―Mandruss ☎ 05:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1687 days ago on 3 January 2020) Discussion about Amanda Henderson's use of "Sharon" in guessing Thunberg's name; this topic has turned into a defense of Amanda Henderson and plays no role in improving Thunberg's Wiki-page. Please close. Johnrichardhall (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Femkemilene (talk • contribs) 09:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1720 days ago on 2 December 2019) Would an experienced editor assess consensus at Talk:Global warming#Second discussion on titles for potential move request. Various topics may require assessment: A) is there consensus for/against a split/fork between 'Climate Change' and 'Global warming' B) Is there consensus to start a rename proposal for either of the two options on the table B) is there consensus to wait a period of time for more developments/research before making an official move. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)