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. 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 8 May 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. A request where a close is deemed unnecessary can be marked with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Close}}, {{Done}}, and {{Not done}}.

Requests for closure

See also: Wikipedia:Requested moves § Elapsed listings, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion § Old discussions, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion § Old business

RfCs

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#RfC: Should episode article titles default to the broadcaster's official title?

(Initiated 1607 days ago on 13 January 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#RfC: Should episode article titles default to the broadcaster's official title?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a tricky one because there is a clear consensus to go against the policy at WP:AT, and the discussion is being carried out at a WikiProject level, so its closure could have far-ranging implications. My gut instinct is that this calls for an amendment to AT and/or an addition to WP:NCTV (which currently does not have any advice on official vs colloquial names), but it's possible that the appropriate call at this time is to start a new discussion at WT:AT. I'd appreciate input from editors that have made similar closures before. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I think some kind of discussion would be needed at WP:AT since it is policy whereas the RfC at WP:TV would likely be added to MOS:TV which is a guideline. Policies supersede guidelines. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I have unarchived the discussion ([1]) and left a note reminding folks there that if they wish to use official titles rather than commonly used titles, they should get broader consensus at Wikipedia talk:Article titles. SilkTork (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I have set up a discussion at AT: Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#RfC:_Official_title_v_commonname_for_television_episodes, but I have worded it poorly so the issue has not been explained properly. I will need to rephrase it. SilkTork (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Hospitalized cases in the vaping lung illness outbreak#Inclusion criteria RFC

(Initiated 1585 days ago on 3 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hospitalized cases in the vaping lung illness outbreak#Inclusion criteria RFC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

This discussion has been been resolved in practice, but a formal and exceptionally clear closing statement would still be helpful.  Otherwise, when one of the editors gets unblocked, we may be back here again.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:List of the verified oldest people#RfC on sourcing

(Initiated 1579 days ago on 10 February 2020) Please assess consensus at Talk:List of the verified oldest people#RfC on sourcing. — JFG ^talk 10:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of the verified oldest people#RfC on sourcing? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Conversion of non-Islamic places of worship into mosques#RfC: Scope

(Initiated 1577 days ago on 11 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Conversion of non-Islamic places of worship into mosques#RfC: Scope? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses#RfC about change proposal for infobox for caucus results

(Initiated 1575 days ago on 13 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses#RfC about change proposal for infobox for caucus results? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Juan Guaidó#RfC on Acting President

(Initiated 1575 days ago on 14 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Juan Guaidó#RfC on Acting President? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Template talk:Football squad player#Redesign RfC

(Initiated 1573 days ago on 15 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Football squad player#Redesign RfC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Equinox#RfC on season-specific redirects

(Initiated 1573 days ago on 16 February 2020) Would an editor please try and close this RfC.  Thanks, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Religion in Israel#RfC: Pie chart

(Initiated 1573 days ago on 16 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Religion in Israel#RfC: Pie chart? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Deprecation and blacklisting process

(Initiated 1567 days ago on 21 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Deprecation and blacklisting process? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Players#RfC on Honours section

(Initiated 1567 days ago on 21 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Players#RfC on Honours section? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Locality categorization by historical subdivisions

(Initiated 1567 days ago on 21 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Locality categorization by historical subdivisions? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Big City Greens#RFC about writers in the infobox

(Initiated 1567 days ago on 22 February 2020) Lots of tensions have run high in this discussion. The editors involved (myself inclueded) have seemed to say everything they have to say. Would love to just have a definitive conclusion to this debate already. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 04:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:North Macedonia#Listing "Macedonia" as a common form in English

(Initiated 1566 days ago on 22 February 2020) The RfC was closed by one of the participants on March 13th. However, a new discussion (not an RfC) was opened below the RfC 3 days after the RfC was opened (Talk:North Macedonia#Options for including "Macedonia"). That discussion is still ongoing, but two editors that support one side are claiming consensus, when clearly it is not the case. Please advise. Khirurg (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Indigenous Aryans#Request for comment: IA/OoI is a fringe theory

(Initiated 1566 days ago on 23 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Indigenous Aryans#Request for comment: IA/OoI is a fringe theory? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Stanley Kubrick#lede photo

(Initiated 1564 days ago on 25 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Stanley Kubrick#lede photo? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Two part RfC about inclusion criteria for listing candidates in infoboxes AND Rfc regarding the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries infobox template

(Initiated 1563 days ago on 26 February 2020) & (Initiated 1555 days ago on 4 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at these related RfCs here & here. This may be a difficult close, as the conversation has had a tenancy to spill over into other talk page sections and overlaps with other RfCs.  Thanks--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Note to closer: A participant discussion is taking place here with the hope of resolving or partly resolving the first of these RfCs without the need for a formal close.  With any luck, that discussion may resolve or narrow the issues of the first RfC.  I do not believe its creator, Davemoth, intended it to resolve the issues raised in the second RfC however.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Vita#Request for Comment

(Initiated 1562 days ago on 27 February 2020) Requesting an administrator to please close the RfC and ensuing discussions there, since there is already a consensus not to add Josephus' Vita to the Vita Disambiguation page.Davidbena (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders#RfC: AOC comment about Politico

(Initiated 1561 days ago on 27 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders#RfC: AOC comment about Politico? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Art Nouveau#Request for comment on Stile Liberty in Italy

(Initiated 1560 days ago on 29 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Art Nouveau#Request for comment on Stile Liberty in Italy? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Mottainai#RFC on Yuriko Sato citation

(Initiated 1557 days ago on 3 March 2020) RFC has been open for 15 days, but has seen no new participation in 11 days. An administrative close will likely be needed, and sooner seems better than later. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#RfC on linking to template namespace

(Initiated 1557 days ago on 3 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#RfC on linking to template namespace? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:List of Steven Universe episodes#RfC on Steven Universe Future hatnote

(Initiated 1555 days ago on 5 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Steven Universe episodes#RfC on Steven Universe Future hatnote? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC on removal of MOS:JOBTITLES

(Initiated 1553 days ago on 6 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC on removal of MOS:JOBTITLES? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (video games)#RfC: "(gamer)" or "(video game player)"?

(Initiated 1553 days ago on 7 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (video games)#RfC: "(gamer)" or "(video game player)"? Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Antifa (United States)#RfC: Capitalization

(Initiated 1553 days ago on 7 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Antifa (United States)#RfC: Capitalization? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Battered woman syndrome#RfC: Should this article and the Battered person syndrome article be merged?

(Initiated 1550 days ago on 9 March 2020) Not a complicated close, and the merge has already been implemented. It just needs an official close from an uninvolved editor. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen, RexxS basically closed it already as I think you know, maybe not officially but like a WP:SNOW close. More stating this for admin so they realise this can be speedily and uncontroversially be closed.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

That is not a close. And it's clear that RexxS was cautious about officially closing it, which was the right call, given how involved RexxS is in the discussion. Yes, RexxS boldly merged the articles, but RexxS still did not do an official close; RexxS clearly stated, "Whatever the details of the eventual closure, it is apparent that there is overwhelming support to merge the two articles into one." Notice the part I bolded. It doesn't even matter that RexxS merging the articles goes against RexxS's vote; I still I don't think it's good or best that RexxS officially close it, just like I wouldn't think it's good or best that either of us officially close it. If this were not a controversial RfC, it would be different. But it was a controversial RfC, with you and another editor arguing differently from others. Editors have disagreed on what is WP:SNOW and aspects of WP:Closing discussions. Furthermore, with the way the RfC is now, late responses could pile on, as they have in other RfC cases before the RfC was closed in a way that no new comments could be added to it. I don't see that you needed to make the above comment. I clearly stated, "Not a complicated close, and the merge has already been implemented. It just needs an official close from an uninvolved editor." I don't want to now argue over how the RfC should be closed. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Goths#RFC about the Name section

(Initiated 1550 days ago on 10 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Goths#RFC about the Name section? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:University of Pittsburgh#RfC about the description of the governance of this university

(Initiated 1550 days ago on 10 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:University of Pittsburgh#RfC about the description of the governance of this university? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2020 Republican Party presidential primaries#RfC regarding the 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries infobox template

(Initiated 1549 days ago on 11 March 2020) Would an editor please assess consensus and close this RfC. Thanks--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Adolf Hitler#Request for comment on number of Jewish deaths in The Holocaust

(Initiated 1549 days ago on 11 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Adolf Hitler#Request for comment on number of Jewish deaths in The Holocaust? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Bakarkhani#RfC about the infobox

(Initiated 1549 days ago on 11 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bakarkhani#RfC about the infobox? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Julian Assange#RfC about Sentence in Lede on GRU Indictments

(Initiated 1546 days ago on 14 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Julian Assange#RfC about Sentence in Lede on GRU Indictments? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Ilhan Omar#RfC about allegations of an affair

(Initiated 1545 days ago on 15 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ilhan Omar#RfC about allegations of an affair? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#RfC on race and intelligence

(Initiated 1543 days ago on 16 March 2020)

• It is requested that an uninvolved administrator, or perhaps a team of administrators, assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#RfC on race and intelligence. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended discussion of the above Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads The consensus was a three admin close and also what SilkTork suggested.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC) The outcome of the current discussion at RSN is highly relevant to outcome of this RFC, because the source being discussed there is the source that most directly addresses the question that the RFC is raising. At this stage, I suggest allowing the RSN discussion to conclude before closing the FTN discussion. Ideally, both discussions should be closed by the same team of admins, to ensure that the conclusions of the two discussions are consistent with one another. 2600:1004:B12C:16E5:BDFF:3E49:E5B:E995 (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC) Disagree. There was never a consensus about a closing panel being necessary, and the RSN thread doesn't have to be closed first (it's just forum shopping). This RFC shouldn't be NAC'd but otherwise it's a normal RFC like any other, and should be closed like any other. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 14:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC) I think it's going to be difficult to find the right closer let alone multiple right closers. Having someone who can put together a close that will be respected, even if not agreed with, by all participants is important given the contentiousness of the issue (and our general collectively brittle state as we all isolate to varying degrees or otherwise deal with the effects of the pandemic). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC) Barkeep49 some admins will be off work or working reduced hours because of the pandemic and thus have more time on their hands. Those who are still working will have no time for recreational activities in their time off work and will be stuck at home and thus will also have more time on their hands. So really it is more likely you will be able to assemble a three person admin close because of the lockdown, in my view.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC) Barkeep49 you were part of a three person close and it caused zero drama, no one disputed it. When a one admin tried to close it before that there was a split community with enormous drama and endless debates. I don’t see why the same cannot be done again, really there is no other option.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC) I think a well reasoned close will normally stick. I agreed that AfD would have benefited from a panel close and still think that was the right decision for a number of factors that were present there. That AfD had many more participants for instance than this RfC. I don't think it's healthy for the project, including in this dispute area, for that to be the requirement for every major discussion going forward. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC) Barkeep49, there are editors on both sides who are either deeply emotional or even unhinged at times with this topic area, a few of whom really should be topic banned but won’t be because diffs can not demonstrate the just about civil but highly disruptive WP:BLUDGEONing of the topic area. ArbCom and AN/I don’t do anything about this type of disruptive behaviour. They dispute every microscopic detail and every word, don’t give an inch, don’t care about policies and guidelines for sources, just their POV and they are very obsessive. In fairness to me, you have not read this RfC so I do feel for that reason your opinion is in error.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC) Literaturegeek, I did read the RfC for its first two weeks and it is possible that it has changed radically in nature since then. However, even if it has, I re-iterate that I think having every major discussion in any given contentious area need to be closed by a panel would be a bad practice for the encyclopedia. If we had an abundance of editors I'd think differently but since we have backlogs in numerous places and single closer has worked at numerous areas full of similar issues to R+I I don't see why this RfC needs a panel. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC) Barkeep49 I am of course talking about this article, wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Race_and_intelligence_(4th_nomination) in my above comment.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC) An IP editor has been canvassing specific admins with non-neutral requests for input or closure. Transparency from any admins who have been solicited this way would be appreciated. –dlthewave ☎ 16:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC) Dlthewave, I'm guessing you're talking about me. I would not characterize that the message that the IP left me as a non-neutral request for closure. I understand why someone might characterize their request to Silk Tork as non-neutral but effectively you're saying that a person who'd you otherwise would trust to be a closer suddenly because of one comment is no longer someone you would trust. That's too bad because I think Silk Tork, and perhaps others I'm not aware of, would have been a superb closer for this issue. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC) Barkeep49, this is why I have my panties in a bunch about this. If you ask an admin to close and they say yes, then people will object because the admin was canvassed. (Doesn't matter who the admin is.) If you ask an admin to close, and they say no because they don't want to be canvassed, then we've knocked a potential closer out of the pool. And that's just as big of a problem! My ABF interpretation (and I admit it's ABF) is that the IP is trying to knock admin out of the pool of potential closers by asking them to close, knowing full well others will object and the admin will demur, as happened with SilkTork. The IP has, on multiple occasions, expressed the need to have a "blue ribbon panel" of admins, specifically selected to be "free of bias". They've explicitly said that we can't just have any "random" admin close this, because of purported bias concerns. This has a chilling effect. As you said, it's going to be really hard to find a closer. Additionally, is there anything that makes this RFC more important than any of the other RFCs waiting for closure? Why should one RFC take up so many admin's time with this select-a-closer nonsense, all coming from one IP? This is on top of an RSN being opened at the tail end of the RFC and purporting to affect the outcome of the RFC. This was done by a "no" advocate in the RFC, and now the IP is canvassing admin to close both, which I see as trying to "force" a close on a half-baked RSN thread (wherein there is obviously no consensus in that thread, because the question was malformed, and it's just yet another forum for the same "yes" and "no" !voters [myself included] to argue the same issues as in the RFC). Do you agree with this: the participants in a discussion do not select the closer of that discussion. It's antithetical to the principle of having an "uninvolved" closer. Therefore, it doesn't matter if the canvassing message is neutrally-worded or not; it's inappropriate to ask a specific admin to close a specific thread. (In the same way that it's inappropriate to ask a specific admin to sanction a specific editor.) We have noticeboards specifically for these purposes. I think either SilkTork or you would make great choices for closers, individually or as part of a panel. And I also think there are literally hundreds of other admin who would also make a great choice. Having an editor push this hard to recruit hand-selected admin to close is inappropriate (even if I agree with the particular selections), and more importantly, really harmful, because it chases potential closers away, while also sucking up limited resources that are needed elsewhere. And a dynamic IP on top of it, so we can't even be sure how many admin were solicited or who they were. Ugh, I categorize this as civil-POV-pushing-gaming-of-consensus. Sure, they're being polite and that's great, but what they're doing is breaking our system for making decisions. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC) Levivich, you do not seriously expect the discussion here to produce an admin willing to close, do you? Do you really think that, at this stage, any admin who hasn't been directly asked is going to voluntarily subject themselves to the inevitable drama that will result? At this stage there are two choices: 1: The discussion(s) can be closed by Barkeep49, or some other admin (or group of admins) who have been directly asked, and who therefore have a reason to subject themselves to this difficulty. 2: The discussion(s) can remain open indefinitely, possibly for months, until they're eventually moved into the noticeboard archives without a formal closure, and then the same dispute continues on the article's talk page where it had been before. I want to avoid option "2". This dispute has been churning for the past four months, and I don't want it to continue for another four months. Somehow it will need to be resolved, and there are a limited number of ways that's possible, especially now that my request for dispute resolution has been rejected. The only other option anyone has proposed for how to resolve it is opening an ArbCom case. If someone would rather do that instead, that would be fine with me also. 2600:1004:B14C:5FEB:A5C7:A31D:F041:4AE2 (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC) Gosh, I could not disagree with you more. Literally, I think the opposite of what you wrote, on every single point. 1. This RFC should not be closed right now at all, because new editors are still joining the discussion almost daily. We had new !votes come in today (Apr 9), and Apr 8, Apr 7, Apr 5, Apr 1, Mar 31, etc. This discussion isn't done yet. 2. Yes, I think that by listing the discussion here, it will be closed. Eventually. There are a lot of RFCs listed here, some much older than this one. I don't think this is the most-pressing RFC on this board right now, but eventually, someone will close it. 3. Asking an admin doesn't give them "a reason to subject themselves to this difficulty". I'm not sure how many times I can say that, at least in my firmly-held opinion, asking a specific admin to close a specific discussion is inappropriate. Giving an admin "a reason" is inappropriate. They're volunteers. They shouldn't feel obligated, they shouldn't be put into an awkward position, they shouldn't be subjected to canvassing. If an admin was going to close an RFC anyway, and then is asked to close it, it will appear that they are only closing it because they were asked, which is unfair to the admin and impinges on the perception of their impartiality.  If an admin was going to close another RFC and is asked to close this one, they may feel obligated to close this one instead of the other one. That robs the other RFC of a closer, which isn't fair to those participants. It also "tells" the admin where to volunteer their time, which isn't fair to the admin. If an admin was going to close an RFC anyway, and is asked to close it, and declines to close it so as to avoid the appearance of canvassing, that robs the RFC of a closer. That's also unfair, to the participants and to the admin. An admin who wasn't going to close anything may feel obligated upon being asked, or may be put in the uncomfortable position of either having to say "no" or having to close an RFC they didn't want to close. That's unfair to the admin and unfair to participants if it results in a closer who really isn't "into it". No matter how you cut it, asking a specific admin to close a specific discussion results in unfairness to the admin and to other editors. 4. I find it extremely offensive to suggest that some admin are qualified to close this RFC but others are not. The only admin who aren't qualified to close this RFC are the ones who !voted in it. All other admin have been vetted by the community. Any uninvolved admin is qualified to close any RFC, with very few exceptions. 5. This dispute churns because you're churning it. As are other "no" !voters. There is now: (a) the RFC, (b) an RSN, (c) this ANRFC, (d) discussion on at least three admin's talk pages, and (e) I don't know where else because I can't figure out how to check the contribs of a dynamic IP. 6. There are not two options here; there is only one, which is that all participants in the RFC stop trying to engineer a close of the RFC, and we let the natural consensus process unfold. Volunteers will volunteer, maybe alone, maybe in a group, to close this RFC when the time is right. All we participants have to do is shut up and wait patiently. WP:NORUSH, WP:VOLUNTEER, etc. Oh and since there is this whole pandemic thing going on, maybe we even give everyone a little more time than usual, eh? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC) It's very ironic of you to accuse me of churning the dispute, considering you're the person who attempted to rename the article to "race and intelligence myth". I'm not the person who's been blanking sections of the article, trying to delete it, trying to rename it, or trying to classify it as "fringe" (which is an obvious prelude to more removals of content, if the RFC is decided in NightHeron's favor). The reason I became involved in that article is because I oppose what the rest of you are trying to do. You have an extremely unrealistic understanding of this situation. This isn't a normal RFC, and never really was, as it's very unusual for the person who started the RFC to so completely dominate it in an effort to ensure their point of view wins. At this stage, whichever admin closes the discussion will be required to read around 40,000 words of text, along with the secondary discussions here and at RSN. The amount of time and effort required will continue to increase as the discussion grows longer and longer. I've been told by multiple admins that it's common for RFCs to never receive a formal closure, and that outcome is looking increasingly likely for this one. After 23 days, the vote in the RFC is split with 25 votes in each direction, so it's unlikely that continuing to accumulate more votes will have much effect besides making the closing admin's task even more difficult. One outcome that I do is acknowledge as possible is that the RFC will eventually be given a zero-effort close by an admin who did not read the entire discussion, like Spartaz's initial "delete" close in the AFD. But I think most people do not want that outcome, and I would hope you don't want it either. 2600:1004:B14C:5FEB:A5C7:A31D:F041:4AE2 (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC) Levivich, a lot of our systems break if you decide to assume bad faith. Civil-POV pushing is a behavior violation; if you have the diffs to back it up the right thing to do is not say it here (this is not a conduct forum) but go to WP:AE and file a proper report. Otherwise I will continue to assume that the IP is an editor in good standing and respond accordingly. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC) Barkeep49, that's true. I'll spare you the link to the suicide pact essay :-) I think you may be right about a noticeboard but I'm loathe to escalate this further. This is already out of control here for ANFRC–apologies to Rose, Cunard and the other regulars for the walls of text. (I would hat it but I'm afraid I'd break the page.) Levivich [dubious – discuss] 22:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC) One of the problems with canvassing is that when good-faith editors are canvassed, their participation in the discussion is immediately suspect through no fault of their own. It's highly inappropriate for a single-purpose account to ask admins of their choosing to provide input or orchestrate a close, and it's also not great for admins to enable this behavior by showing up to the discussion as requested. I agree that this should be further addressed at AE or ANI. I also have no concerns about a "random admin" botching the close. All of our admins were chosen for their competence and they generally have good self-awareness of which tasks are within their wheelhouse. If an editor is concerned about finding a closer, they should post a notice here. That's what ANRFC is for. –dlthewave ☎ 12:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC) A single admin closing this will automatically have their decision challenged, accused of biased or more likely attacked on such a divisive article. Only a three person admin close will be accepted. Just look at the drama here where no one agrees, never mind the RfC.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC) Literaturegeek, I agree that a three person team would be best. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 23:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC) Comment This is a diff to SilkTork’s suggested three person close. Just look at this discussion where editors on both sides are facing the reality that a three person close is the only way out of this:wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Discussion_of_appropriateness_of_proposed/solicited_closing_of_this_RfC you can clearly see the amount of drama and accusations going back and forth just in trying to get a close done. I think everyone wants a close that means they can accept it and move on. Three trusted admins will correct each other on any potential bias resulting in a close that will have to be accepted by both sides no matter which side gets butt hurt. I have actually left the RfC because it is far too toxic with insults and insinuations. A one admin close will certainly not be accepted because the RfC voting numbers and arguments are emotionally intense, split down the middle and deeply polarised and will inevitably result in instant drama with accusations of bias.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC) I don't think SilkTork is suggesting a three person close. I think SilkTork is explaining how such a request could be made. I've commented on the rest of this above so I won't repeat myself. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC) Actually, rereading his comment, and the context of it, your interpretation may actually be more accurate. I don’t like to misrepresent people. SilkTork, on further thought, was neutral on the idea as I recall he was bowing out at that point, I forgot the context. I read too much into it, have struck above. Thanks for your feedback Barkeep49.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC) I am requesting again that this discussion be assessed and closed. I think any uninvolved administrator or set of administrators will suffice. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)   In my post here I predicted that no admin who wasn't directly asked would volunteer to close this RFC. RFCs are typically closed after 30 days, so I think my prediction is being borne out. @Barkeep49: You've said you don't want to close the RFC yourself and I won't pressure you to change your mind about that, but is there anything you can do to help ensure this RFC is closed properly? Literaturegeek, Insertcleverphrasehere, Bpesta22 and I all have expressed the view that it should be closed by a team of three admins like the AFD was, so that type of closure would be best. 2600:1004:B161:F80D:B9BC:F15E:F101:6CC1 (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 2600:1004, as I've expressed to you I am opposed to a team close on this RfC. I am opposed because I do not believe this conflict area is going away, we have only so many qualified closers, we only have so much capacity and I argue we don't even have enough capacity for our existing processes, which includes even controversial RfCs being closed by a single closer. Beyond that I also have my own difficulty at getting a panel of closers for a recent RFC (WP:MEDMOS2020) where a lot of begging on a highly visible board eventually yielded two closers. So even if I did believe in a team close I would not have any brilliant ideas about how to find such sysops. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC) I see. @SilkTork: do you have any ideas? As in Barkeep49's case, I accept that you do not wish to close the RFC yourself, so I'm just asking for some more general help or guidance with respect to obtaining a proper closure. 2600:1004:B161:F80D:B9BC:F15E:F101:6CC1 (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 2600:: please try to be patient. There are 34 other RfCs ahead of this one, most of which were opened 40-60 days ago, and volunteers who patrol here typically work their way down from the top. It's unlikely that we'll get bumped to the front of the queue since there's no special urgency to this discussion. When it's our turn, a competent admin will come along and close it, or a group close will be organized in the unlikely event that it's considered necessary. –dlthewave ☎ 14:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC) Barkeep49, have you considered that the very recent last AfD for this article/topic area attracted what some viewed as a WP:SUPERVOTE by a closing admin requiring a community deletion review? And that another admin (who several editors raised concerns in their later RfB that they had a history of doing supervotes on other closes as well and caused their RfB to be rejected) posted a proposed close they were intending to do, but were beaten to it, that was opposite to the three person close? That led to a significant drain on community time with a long deletion review before a team close was recommended which overturned the original close. I guess many of us, on both sides of the debate, would like a close that is free from allegations of a supervote so we can accept it and move on. Few of us want to go through the whole community review and drama again on an RfC review discussion. MEDMOS is nowhere near as controversial as race and intelligence. I guess a one admin close that sticks strictly to policy and is done to a high quality could be accepted, but the concern of a supervote (or false allegation of supervote) is there given the controversial nature of this topic, thus perpetuating rather than resolving the drama in this topic area.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC) Have I considered that a panel close was necessary for that AfD? Yes. Did I think the panel was right then? Yes. Do I think it was right in retrospect? Yes. And yet I still don't think a panel is necessary here. I respect that you think differently and am not going to try and convince you otherwise. Nor should you feel the need to convince me - I am not going to be closing that RfC whether individually or on a panel. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC) Okay, thanks Barkeep49 for taking the time to read and reply. You have now heard all my points of view, thank you for considering them, I have nothing further to add. I will not disturb your editing experience with this any further.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC) I hope this gets closed soon. It has turned into a text wall on top of a text wall, largely due to WP:BLUDGEON in true excess by a couple of parties on one side, followed by specific "closing candidate" canvassing of particular admins by an anon on the other side. I think it would be especially helpful for a) the three-uninvolved-admins panel to form now and start working on it; b) refactor with {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} every single bludgeon post (i.e., every comment and block of comments following any of the actual !votes), because the page is so think with e-yelling that it discourages further new input; and c) announce that the three-admin review has started and that the RfC will be formally closed to new comments at X date and time (UTC). Don't take any guff from people wanting to "vote you off" the panel; F that noise. Everyone in that discussion has a viewpoint, and everyone coming to it is going to have one; the whole point of a panel is to mitigate bias, and it's not likely that any participant in that debate with be perfectly happy with every single admin who volunteers to wade through that mess.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC) My top priority is to finish my Arbcom submission but following that I would be willing, as an uninvolved administrator, to clerk that discussion by collapsing some of the extended discussion which is cluttering the noticeboard. Alternatively, and this might be better, the RfC could be moved, at this point, to its own page with a pointer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC) @Barkeep49: I think your second suggestion, to move the RFC to its own page, is the better one. I don't agree with the proposal to collapse all the non-vote comments. While some of these comments are mere bludgeoning, there are others that make important points, such as the posts pointing out how some of the cited sources say do not say what they're claimed to say, or comments explaining how "race" and "intelligence" are defined in the research this RFC is about. In my opinion we should not discourage subsequent voters from reading those comments. I also think it's almost impossible for any person to be a truly objective judge of what comments are bludgeoning, and what comments make important points, and any decision about which discussions to collapse would inevitable give everyone yet another thing to argue about. 2600:1004:B127:D823:71A5:A349:3F5C:2EA7 (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC) Yeah, some sources were significantly misrepresented and closing/hatting comments could bias the outcome of the RfC by suppressing certain replies. In any event, the conversations below comments have all come to an end. The ongoing comments are in the subsections below the RfC.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done by TonyBallioni. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#RfC about statements from former members of the MEK

(Initiated 1544 days ago on 16 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#RfC about statements from former members of the MEK? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump#RfC

(Initiated 1541 days ago on 19 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump#RfC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Beethoven#RfC: European

(Initiated 1532 days ago on 28 March 2020) Would an editor assess and provide feedback at the discussion at Talk:Beethoven#RfC: European? Thanks, James343e (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@James343e: Presumably you mean Talk:Ludwig van Beethoven#European. This was never a formal WP:RFC, but even so, to request closure after just over twelve hours is unusual. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I made the mistake of being too precipitate. I think we are solving the discussion. I will only ask for help back if absolutely necessary. Cheers, James343e (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	9	53	0	62
TfD	0	0	12	0	12
MfD	0	0	3	0	3
FfD	0	0	5	0	5
RfD	0	2	30	0	32
AfD	0	0	1	0	1

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 April 11#Template:Brandy Clark

(Initiated 1546 days ago on 14 March 2020) Please review Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 April 11#Template:Brandy Clark, relisted thrice without listing a reason for doing so. --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Copyright P backlog

There is a huge backlog at the WP:COPYPROB listings section. If there is anyone who is familiar with CRP who could alleviate this issue, it would be appreciated. 92.9.147.195 (talk) 10:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officers#Proposed_split_of_"Perpetrator"_section

(Initiated 1895 days ago on 31 March 2019) Please review Talk:2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officers#Proposed_split_of_"Perpetrator"_section. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Middle-earth peoples#Merger proposal — Radagast

(Initiated 1755 days ago on 18 August 2019): Discussion longstanding and somewhat scattered with additional comments at Talk:Radagast#Merge and separate merge discussions of other Middle-earth articles on the talk page; there was also an AfD from 12 November 2019 resulting in Keep. I attempted close as recorded at the end of the discussion at 19:13, 12 February 2020 but this was reverted at 16:08, 18 March 2020‎, so please close. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2020 Formula One World Championship#Map

(Initiated 1663 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)

 Note: An RfC has just started to discuss whether there should be a map at all. Therefore this discussion may be void after the RfC closes.
SSSB (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

 Note: That RfC has finished and we still need this discussion to be closed. Thanks,
SSSB (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Global warming#Second discussion on titles for potential move request

 Note: The discussion has been archived: Talk:Global_warming/Archive_80#Second_discussion_on_titles_for_potential_move_request

(Initiated 1648 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)

Talk:Device fingerprint#Overlap with Browser fingerprint and Canvas fingerprinting

(Initiated 1598 days ago on 22 January 2020) At the time of discussion, two users voiced their skepticism about the proposed merger, but they never engaged nor conclusively opposed the merger. A month after the discussion had halted I proceeded with the merge, but now an editor has come back reverting the merge. I'm open to a new discussion with him, but on the ground that the previous discussion was closed with consensus. Thank you,--Esponenziale (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 February#Familiar

(Initiated 1571 days ago on 17 February 2020) – Please close this MRV. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 15:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 March#Ice age (disambiguation)

(Initiated 1558 days ago on 1 March 2020) – Please close this MRV. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 08:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done by King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ at 08:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC). P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 17:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Newslaundry on OpIndia

(Initiated 1552 days ago on 8 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Newslaundry on OpIndia? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cunard, I noticed that you restored this discussion from the archive and then listed it here for closure. This discussion was actually an ordinary discussion and not an RfC. If you believe a formal closure would be helpful, that is totally fine, but I think this request belongs in the #Other types of closing requests section. Thanks for keeping all of the RfCs in order – it's something I really appreciate! — Newslinger talk 10:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Newslinger (talk · contribs), and thank you for the excellent work you've done at WP:RSN and WP:ANRFC! I have moved this close request from the #RfCs section to the #Other types of closing requests section. There has been substantial discussion about the reliability of the source, so I think a close would be helpful to determine whether the source can be used to verify the proposed material. If you think the issue is already resolved or a close would not be helpful, I am fine with withdrawing this close request. Cunard (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think a withdrawal is needed. This discussion will be, in all likelihood, the first of many discussions on this source, and a closure would probably be helpful. — Newslinger talk 11:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 March#Pink_Season_(Pink_Guy_album)

(Initiated 1551 days ago on 9 March 2020) – Please close this MRV. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 08:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done by King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ at 08:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC). P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 17:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Canadian stations)#Go station naming

(Initiated 1526 days ago on 3 April 2020) – Please close this discussion, no new developments in the past week. Cards84664 20:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)