Wikipedia:Closure requests

The Requests for closure noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Wikipedia.

Please note that most discussions do not need formal closure. Where consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion, provided the discussion has been open long enough for a consensus to form. The default length of an RfC is 30 days; where consensus becomes clear before that and discussion is not ongoing, the discussion can be closed earlier, although it should not be closed sooner than one week except in the case of WP:SNOW.

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.

Note: 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.

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. If there is disagreement with a particular closure, you can start a new discussion at the original page, WP:Village Pump, or Administrators' noticeboard with a link to the discussion page and the policy-based reason you believe the closure should be overturned.

Please post new requests at the end of the appropriate section(s).

Requests for closure

See also: Wikipedia:Requested moves

Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions#Use of account creator

Could an uninvolved admin please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions#Use of account creator and close the discussion. Which ever way this is closed (except no consensus obviously) a change/clarification will need to be made at WP:Account creator, Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Account creator, and (if it's closed that way) removal of account creator rights from some people. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Closed discussion. I'd appreciate it if someone else did the other parts. Thanks. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:RJL#UK-specific deviations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Requesting an uninvolved admin to close the above. It was not an official RFC but more or less a straw poll to gauge consensus, though I am not sure that it ultimately has done so. However, it should be closed so we can see where it falls off. --Rschen7754 23:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Please undo and close with "No consensus" which I believe to be an accurate description. Martinvl (talk) 06:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Please also take note that this request came rather soon after this thread and this thread, both of which were on the verge of getting nasty. I for one backed away and did not make my opinion known. I now make it known - I oppose them. Martinvl (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, please just drop the WP:STICK. --Rschen7754 10:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, please admit that there was no consensus. Martinvl (talk) 10:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Just glancing at the discussion, I think I would have closed it the same way as Nathan. Can you say more about why you see no consensus? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I knew there was something fishy about a request to close something that seemed so one-sided. Anyway, AN is the place to request review of such. Well, after asking politely on the closer's user talk page, but that ship has sailed. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

May I make another request that this version (12 June 2013) be instated as the last stable version of the page. If you look at the section "M5 Motorway", you will see that the road junction list is identical to the version propsed by User:Rschen7754 three years ago here. Rschen7754's version of 2010 has been accepted, yet it was Rschen7754 who initiated the closure on the debate which triggerd the lock. Martinvl (talk) 05:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Which is a complete red herring. The current version reflects the current consensus, and that is what should remain. --Rschen7754 05:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Please let an uninvolved administrator make that decision. Martinvl (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Please use {{edit protected}} on the article talk page. Though it will almost certainly be rejected without first obtaining consensus on the talk page. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Gun_control#RFC

Highly controversial article. RFC open for 7 days (as of 6/27), last !vote 6 days ago. Survey !votes results approaching WP:SNOW but several editors without !votes commenting in extensive threaded discussion. Threaded discussion is primarily previously involved editors rehashing same debates, but a few people notified by RFC discussing as well. Survey !votes have a lot of new voices. At least one "opposing" editor explicitly abstaining from RFC, a few others with discussion but no !vote. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done. Please see/read the paragraph above starting "Please note that most discussions do not need formal closure." -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

@Nathan Johnson This article has been subject to highly contentious editing, edit warring, etc. There are active "threats" in the discussion to nominate the article for deletion immediately, and accusations of violations of policy all over the place. I am coming here for closure to keep everything as above board as possible so that there are no accusations of impropriety or manipulation of the RFC closure analysis (particularly as I am the creator of the RFC, and one of the more active prior-involved editors) Gaijin42 (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Closed as no consensus with a suggestion to reopen the RfC. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I have reopened it per your suggestion. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Ugg boots trademark disputes#Request for comment about counterfeiting

A long and at times contentious RFC that needs an uninvolved admin to close. Due to several problems, the first RFC (open for 40 days) was closed with no consensus by User:Dpmuk who also moderated this RFC. This second RFC has been open for 58 days with the last vote lodged 46 days ago and formal discussion ending 42 days ago. User:Dpmuk posted on 11 June that he would be away for a few days but would close within a week if another admin had not already done so, that was 18 days ago. User:Dpmuk suggested posting here at WP:AN/RFC if the RFC remained open too long. Wayne (talk) 06:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Bulls (American football)

I can't give you a specific number on how many articles are nominated for deletion in bulk here. I suggest we procedurally close this discussion and have the nom nominate some of the articles separately. The current number of articles is simply too much to discuss in one AfD. In order to make a fair argument, one must spend at least an hour combing and judging each separately. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)