Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure
|Threads older than 300 days may be archived by.|
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 closure is 30 days (opened on or before 3 February 2015); 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.
- 1 Requests for closure
- 1.1 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 8
- 1.2 Template talk:Armed Iraqi groups in the Iraq War and the Iraq Civil War#RfC, best way of categorising groups
- 1.3 Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script
- 1.4 Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_12#Country Party of Australia
- 1.5 Kit Carson
- 1.6 Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Appending the Manual of Style on gender-neutral language
Requests for closure
Seven discussions still open. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 05:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Template talk:Armed Iraqi groups in the Iraq War and the Iraq Civil War#RfC, best way of categorising groups
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Armed Iraqi groups in the Iraq War and the Iraq Civil War#RfC, best way of categorising groups (Initiated 69 days ago on 26 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script
states : This RfC will run for 30 days or until a clear consensus emerges. It is recommended that this RfC be closed by an Admin - one who has no previous involvement in the AfC process. This RfC for an emergency measure has run for 11 days and participation has tailed off; a consensus appears to have been reached so would an uninvolved admin please consider closing it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
From here at WP:AN:
Would an admin assess the consensus the consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script (initiated 5 February 2015)? According to this post at WP:ANRFC, this is an "RfC for an emergency measure". Thank you, Cunard (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- You mean to assess if there is a clear consensus? Despite this being an emergency measure, the RfC itself says "this RfC will run for 30 days or until a clear consensus emerges" so it should probably be allowed to continue to run the 30 days if there is no clear consensus. BTW, I'm seeing !votes on 1st February so I think the 5 February date must be wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- I see that an involved party (namely, the user making the original proposal) has taken it upon himself to close the RfC even though he is *not* uninvolved, the RfC has only run for 15 of the normal 30 days and the proposal is controversial. I believe this should be reverted at once, but would prefer not to become involved in an edit war by reverting it myself. Comments? K7L (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- The close was overturned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive269#Closure review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. Cunard (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Please close any RfCs about Kit Carson if they have run out of "response" time. One editor makes editing and progress hopeless. He/she admits knowing nothing about Carson, but finds something to "snaggle" the article's progress at every turn. Thanks! SeeSpot Run (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)