Wikipedia:Closure requests: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:00, 28 February 2023

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38

This page has archives. Sections older than 182 days may be automatically archived by .

Shortcuts

The Closure requests 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 appears 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 16 April 2024); if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed earlier. 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 a discussion has ended to get a formal closure from an uninvolved editor. When the consensus is reasonably clear, participants may be best served by not requesting closure and then waiting weeks for a formal closure.

If the consensus of a given discussion appears unclear, then you may post a brief and neutrally-worded request for closure here; be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. Do not use this board to continue the discussion in question. A helper script is available to make listing discussions easier.

If you disagree with a particular closure, please discuss matters on the closer's talk page, 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. Closers who want to discuss their evaluation of consensus while preparing for a close may use WP:Discussions for discussion.

A request for comment from February of 2013 discussed the process for appealing a closure and whether or not an administrator could summarily overturn a non-administrator's closure. The consensus of that discussion 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#Non-admin closure for details.

To reduce editing conflicts and an undesirable duplication of effort when closing a discussion listed on this page, please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry here. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. A request where a close is deemed unnecessary can be marked with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

Requests for closure

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents#Advocacy editing by User:TheTranarchist

(Initiated 452 days ago on 18 February 2023) There's a topic ban proposal in there, so this is going to need an admin to close. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bludgeoning and edit warring by Newimpartial

(Initiated 449 days ago on 21 February 2023) Discussion involves a proposal for a topic ban, among other options, so an admin closer will be required. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 4 heading

Requests for comment

Talk:Jarnail_Singh_Bhindranwale/Archive_8#RfC

(Initiated 581 days ago on 12 October 2022) Enough opinions. Last edit is from 21 October 2022. Srijanx22 (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#RfC on leader since election infobox parameter

(Initiated 485 days ago on 16 January 2023) The RfC tag has expired. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done, courtesy ping to GoodDay — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 13:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#RfC on leaders seat election infobox parameter

(Initiated 485 days ago on 16 January 2023) The RfC tag has expired. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done, courtesy ping to GoodDay — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 13:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022

(Initiated 482 days ago on 19 January 2023) This is quite possibly the largest RFC in the history of Wikipedia. While I note that a full 30 days has not yet run its course, the !votes have started to slow, and discussion has centered upon the WMF response. It may take some time to put together a panel of uninvolved editors to close this, or for a single editor to weigh everything with due diligence, so I'm making this request to get that ball rolling, as I don't think it wise to leave this open much past 30 days. To whoever takes up the mantle of closing this, I applaud your courage! schetm (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It may take some time to put together a panel of uninvolved editors to close this, so I'm making this request to get that ball rolling, as I don't think it wise to leave this open much past 30 days. I don't think a panel is required. BilledMammal (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to you on the RFC talk page - we needn't clog things up here. schetm (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Before any editor(s) commits to closing this discussion, please be aware that this RfC has had more than 600 participants and over 500 !votes, so its outcome will be intensely scrutinized. Please also make sure you have the time and ability to read through the entire RfC in full, and recuse from closing if you participated in the RfC. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It won't be me - Though I don't think I did the "support/oppose", I definitely commented in the discussion(s). Whoever closes this should be aware, people have split this discussion to several pages, several times. So there is going to be a fair amount to read and assess. - jc37 16:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, everything is located on the main Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022 and the discussion subpage at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022/Discussion. There are no other pages. It may also be helpful to read Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022, though that is likely not feasible. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend a paneled closure by three or so administrators. This 100% shouldn't be closed by a non-admin. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^talk 00:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also have fun closing this... I put the RfC and the discussion into a word counter and it says it's 214,371 words long. For reference that's about the length of Catch-22 (174,269) and The Great Gatsby (47,094) combined. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^talk 02:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think three admins are needed. The last one was closed by one admin and one non-admin (right) and that seemed plenty. Having even more editors involved is a bit of waste of resources. We should not set an ever-growing precedent on panelled closures. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uninvolved and willing to help close if needed, as long as there are 1-2 other people, preferably at least one admin. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should we make a post at WP:AN inviting interested admins? InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@InfiniteNexus: I've started an AN thread already, but formal invitation of admins hasn't been done. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^talk 01:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering, should we drop a note on the administrators' newsletter too? InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Femke I remember reading some wikipedia research about how the English wiki has turned towards interpretation of rules rather than writing new ones, similar to how now many countries use courts to interpret constitutions rather than alter existing ones. I wonder if the increasing prominence of panelled closures is some extension of this trend. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 13:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read that whole discussion with my RfC closer hat on, and after reflecting on it I've decided not to involve myself because I'd need an asbestos talk page. I do want to weigh in on the question of whether an admin closer is needed, and I think that request is preposterous. There is absolutely no basis whatsoever for a sysop close.

We ask sysops to close difficult discussions where it's necessary to weigh the evidence in the light of policies and guidelines. But that discussion is about a matter of aesthetic judgment. There is no evidence to consider and the only policy involved is WP:CONSENSUS -- specifically the paragraphs at WP:DETCON and WP:CONEXCEPT. Certain of the !votes can safely be disregarded because they're made by people who're obviously not in good faith, but not enough of them to affect the outcome.

I would say that that close is utterly bloody obvious.—S Marshall T/C 17:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is one more guideline that is relevant for a close, even if in a much more limited fashion than the above two given the discussion: WP:ACCESSIBILITY. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. I still think the outcome is utterly bloody obvious.—S Marshall T/C 17:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that the previous two closers had only one user talk page discussion opened on the matter (I assume asbestos talk page refers to anticipated pushback?) —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.—S Marshall T/C 17:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#RFC on Minneapolis cuisine image

(Initiated 461 days ago on 10 February 2023)

See Move to close?

Because the underlying dispute is long-standing, and in the event a followup RFC is needed, closure by an experienced admin would be optimal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
V	Apr	May	Total
CfD	19	14	33
TfD	0	1	1
MfD	1	3	4
FfD	2	4	6
RfD	22	50	72
AfD	0	6	6

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 4 heading

Other types of closing requests

Talk:The Wire (India)#Merger proposal

(Initiated 563 days ago on 30 October 2022). New comments are not being added at a substantial rate. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Luhansk People's Republic#Proposed merge of Russian occupation of Luhansk Oblast into Luhansk People's Republic

(Initiated 535 days ago on 27 November 2022) New comments are not being added at a substantial rate. HappyWith (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Endemic COVID-19#Proposed merge

(Initiated 530 days ago on 2 December 2022) Last !vote was 27 days ago, and later discussion among involved editors indicates a lack of ability to develop consensus without formal closure from an uninvolved party. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add this is probably not suitable for a non-admin close (WP:BADNAC). Bon courage (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Cost_of_living_in_Namibia#Merge

(Initiated 517 days ago on 16 December 2022) --- Tbf69 P • T 17:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 102#Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: section on Ukrainian forces

(Initiated 511 days ago on 21 December 2022) Please review this discussion. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Proposed_merge_of_2023_visit_by_Joe_Biden_to_Ukraine_into_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine

(Initiated 450 days ago on 20 February 2023) - Very annoying merge tag on top of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. --- Tbf69 P • T 16:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 4 heading

@@ Line 114: / Line 114: @@
 :I would say that that close is utterly bloody obvious.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 17:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 ::There is one more guideline that is relevant for a close, even if in a much more limited fashion than the above two given the discussion: [[WP:ACCESSIBILITY]]. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 17:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
+:::That's fair.  I still think the outcome is utterly bloody obvious.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 17:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 ::Also, note that the previous two closers had only one user talk page discussion opened on the matter (I assume asbestos talk page refers to anticipated pushback?) [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 17:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
+:::Yes.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 17:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 ==== [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#RFC on Minneapolis cuisine image]] ====

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards