Wikipedia:Closure requests: Difference between revisions
Requesting G13 closure. |
→Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Expand G13 to cover ALL old drafts: the template parameter requires the date that the RfC was initiated, not the closure request |
||
| Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
====[[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Expand G13 to cover ALL old drafts]]==== |
====[[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Expand G13 to cover ALL old drafts]]==== |
||
Because there has been some debate in a involved editor and because there has been disputes as to the consensus, I request an independent admin (or two) to close and evaluate the consensus however it shall be read. I have a personal view but wish for the community's wishes to be accurately rendered. I also understand that it may still be too early to close and render a consensus, in which case I give consent to have the date parameter adjusted for the template. {{Initiated|type=rfc| |
Because there has been some debate in a involved editor and because there has been disputes as to the consensus, I request an independent admin (or two) to close and evaluate the consensus however it shall be read. I have a personal view but wish for the community's wishes to be accurately rendered. I also understand that it may still be too early to close and render a consensus, in which case I give consent to have the date parameter adjusted for the template. {{Initiated|type=rfc|5 July 2017|done=no}} [[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]] ([[User talk:Hasteur|talk]]) 17:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC) |
||
====Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line==== |
====Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line==== |
||
Revision as of 17:41, 4 August 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)
StaleDrStrauss talk 17:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line
RfCs
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)
A bot has just removed the RFC template as "expired" (see [1]) but no Admin has weighed in to make a determination on whether there or not there's consensus for the proposal. I'm wondering if an uninvolved admin can take a look and make a determination? (Initiated 2641 days ago on 14 June 2017) Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
A solo closure by an uninvolved editor may suffice. Nevertheless, I welcome a joint closure performed by two. (Initiated 2636 days ago on 19 June 2017) --George Ho (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Doing... - Another editor has posted the {{closing}} template on the RfC. — Music1201 talk 16:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)#RfC on scope (Initiated 2650 days ago on 5 June 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Locomotives and rolling stock of the Victorian Railways, predecessors and successors#Reliability of sources in rolling stock articles (social media etc) (Initiated 2636 days ago on 19 June 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Proposed changes to WP:BIDIRECTIONAL (Initiated 2620 days ago on 5 July 2017)? Thanks, Mitchumch (talk) 08:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
An uninvolved editor should evaluate and close the discussion. (Initiated 2604 days ago on 21 July 2017) --George Ho (talk) 06:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Because there has been some debate in a involved editor and because there has been disputes as to the consensus, I request an independent admin (or two) to close and evaluate the consensus however it shall be read. I have a personal view but wish for the community's wishes to be accurately rendered. I also understand that it may still be too early to close and render a consensus, in which case I give consent to have the date parameter adjusted for the template. (Initiated 2620 days ago on 5 July 2017) Hasteur (talk) 17:36, 4 August 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)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line
Other types of closing requests
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)
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)
There has been a discussion of the wording/content of the good article criteria. It has been open for around two weeks with no edits for four days; closure by an uninvolved editor would be appreciated. 22:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by J Milburn (talk • contribs)
- Just in case: (Initiated 2622 days ago on 3 July 2017) --George Ho (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2647 days ago on 7 June 2017) Can someone close this GAR? -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
WP:FORUMSHOP – started less than 24 hours after opening discussion on article talk page. User who started discussion has not shown good-faith effort to build consensus on the article talk page (Talk:Linda Sarsour#Criticism section), or to understand the relevant parts of WP:BLP. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
An uninvolved editor should close the discussion please. Thanks. (Initiated 2612 days ago on 13 July 2017) --George Ho (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)