Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:

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.

Ball1.png

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 April 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.

Ball2.png

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.

Billiardball3.png

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

XfD[edit]

CfD backlog[edit]

There are currently many open discussions, including some going all the way back to December. Please see the list at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Discussions_awaiting_closure. - jc37 17:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 21[edit]

There are twelve discussions of Feb 21 still open while it's nearly two months later. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Down to ten discussions as of now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Don't think so, I still count 12. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, but it's now down to 9. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 March 7[edit]

One file in here that everyone seems to have forgotten about, and is over a month old. Closure would be appreciated by any admin who knows naything about images and NFCC. (Initiated 57 days ago on 7 March 2015) EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested moves[edit]

Requested moves backlog

Anyone have a mop? Some of the discussions there are backed up all the way from early February. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Piracy_in_Somalia#Requested_move_8_April_2015[edit]

Would someone be able to close this requested move discussion, which has been inactive for two weeks? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)=[edit]

Admins, I needed to stir controversy to prove a point I KNEW was right before I did what I did, and I got stonewalled. Take a look up and see. These people who refused to edit their work and ignored what actually were valid complaints. Please take a look before I invoke someone's wrath once again. We need permission to override this silly excuse for a consensus. Nobody else seems to be willing to give any leeway at all to anyone who isn't one of them in this article. Kind of urgent. People have been defending this left and right as consensus when it clearly is not. People may feel like I deceived them but it's only for dishonest reasons. I know I have to email oversight about other mods but can somebody let me change the title? If this was not constantly stonewalling I don't know what is. NPOV Ninja (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC). Please let me change it to Emma Sulkowicz rape allegations as per Tawana Brawley rape accusations. They finally justified why they feel the way they do and her feelings are not an encyclopedic reason. NPOV Ninja (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Requests for comment[edit]

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Should_another_move_request_at_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_be_permitted.3F[edit]

Though not a formal RfC, I'm requesting a formal closure here due the potentially controversial nature of the question. NickCT (talk) 18:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:2 May 2014 Odessa clashes#Requested move 3 March 2015[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2 May 2014 Odessa clashes#Requested move 3 March 2015 (Initiated 61 days ago on 3 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Korean American#Requested move 11 March 2015[edit]

Requesting closure on Talk:Korean_American#Requested_move_11_March_2015. (Initiated 53 days ago on 11 March 2015). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request[edit]

Pursuant to the discussion currently being held at the Village Pump, if there is determined to be a consensus that another move discussion is permissible with respect to Hillary Rodham Clinton, such a discussion will likely be initiated sometime within the next few weeks. As with the previous effort on this matter, it is requested that a three-admin panel be convened to determine the consensus of the community in this discussion. Such a panel should be composed of three administrators who are experienced in closing RMs, and who are uninvolved with article at issue, and have not previously participated in these discussions. The panel members would be expected to monitor the discussion and enforce civility and protocol, and close it at the end of the allotted discussion period. In light of the last experience, it would also be appreciated if the panel members were to make sure to be available to close the discussion and make a determination of consensus quickly. bd2412 T 04:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@BD2412: I'm a non-admin who has closed a lot of RM discussions before, so would be happy to volunteer if needed. Mdann52 (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I have no objection to an experienced non-admin being on such a panel, if the other two members are admins. bd2412 T 12:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Am happy to volunteer if theres a general view that a three-closer panel is needed. I think the panel idea should be flagged at the RfC, in case this (also) is subject to objection. Not suggesting a !vote on it, just something noting this is the proposed close method. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks - that makes two. I will make a note on the discussion draft. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: The Village Pump discussion has closed with a determination that a new move discussion is permissible. This discussion will be initiated within the next few days at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request. bd2412 T 02:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
@Mdann52 and Euryalus: Update: Discussion has been launched and is now underway at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request. Please keep an eye on it. A third uninvolved, experienced RM-closer is still needed for the panel. bd2412 T 18:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm happy to help. I haven't closed a heap of RMs (so if someone else how has is available feel free to take my spot), but I've done a number of discussions, some contentious. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Then we have our panel. So far the discussion, although hard-fought, has basically remained civil and focused. However, additional eyes are always useful. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
BD2412, as an involved editor, I think you should give a little more distance to appearing to sign off on the appointment of the closers. Of course, I am sure they will do an excellent job. Does this discussion preclude another admin from declaring a consensus and closing? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I certainly hope I have been neutral in this task. I was quite specifically asked (in this discussion) to request a three-admin panel, and I believe I have done so dutifully. The exact same thing happened in the last RM - I was asked to request a panel, I requested one just as I requested this one, and the panel that was assembled closed the discussion as they did. In light of that, I am not the least bit worried that I have any undue influence over anyone else (or, really, that anyone listens to me at all). bd2412 T 04:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I have zero problems with the manner which bd2412 has asked for a panel to close the RM. Despite the editor irritating the Hell out of me most of the time. :-p Dave Dial (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Suggestion It occured to me that it might be beneficial for the members of the closing panel not to be from the same national/regional/cultural background i.e. not all from the U.S. and not all from other countries. I would think, in reflection on List of countries by English-speaking population, that a potentially neutral mix would be to have one admin from the U.S. and two from other locations. Its just a suggestion. GregKaye 18:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • A note to potential closers – In order for this closure to be accepted, it must meet the standard set by the last closure, which was quite high in terms of thoroughness. I'd ask that the closers take a look at the research done by closer TParis. Such research is representative of the standard that must be met in the closure of this current request. RGloucester 03:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
RGloucester, I don't argue that it would be good for closure to be enacted to a high standard but, when you say "In order for this closure to be accepted", accepted by who? The last RM went through the process that you mentioned and still came to a decision that was widely questioned and which went to MR. GregKaye 18:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Exceptions to Small Caps[edit]

An admin is requested to close this RfC about whether there should be certain exceptions for the MOS's general prohibition of the use of smallcaps, exceptions to accommodate specific usages and WP:CITEVAR. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Seconding this request for closure. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Roy Moore#Non-notable Play?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Roy Moore#Non-notable Play? (Initiated 78 days ago on 14 February 2015)? The opening poster wrote:

There's a section called Judge Roy Moore is Coming to Dinner about a play which is a parody of Judge Roy Moore. If it is notable it should probably have it's own page as the play does not feature him at all. However, there's limited WP:SOURCES on this and the play's creator. Seems like WP:FRINGE ...

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Breda O'Brien#RfC[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Breda O'Brien#RfC (Initiated 72 days ago on 20 February 2015)? The opening poster wrote:

Should the lead include the sentence from the body of the article:

... and to same-sex marriage, but does not now oppose civil partnership.[6][7]

Or should the lead remain simply:

O'Brien opposes same-sex marriage.

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Prometheus (2012 film)#RfC: Multiple announcements for sequel of production progress and release dates for Prometheus 2[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Prometheus (2012 film)#RfC: Multiple announcements for sequel of production progress and release dates for Prometheus 2 (Initiated 56 days ago on 8 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Multi-sport events#Separate Beach volleyball at the 2014 Asian Games[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Multi-sport events#Separate Beach volleyball at the 2014 Asian Games (Initiated 134 days ago on 20 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Splitting up the MfD[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Splitting up the MfD (Initiated 70 days ago on 22 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thread was archived to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 121#Splitting up the MfD without having been closed. Closure still necessary. Kraxler (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Harassment#WP: OUTEX[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Harassment#WP: OUTEX (Initiated 66 days ago on 26 February 2015)? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Harassment#RfC: Links related to paid editing. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I second this request, discussion has now completely ceased. Thryduulf (talk) 08:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Help talk:Referencing for beginners#RfC: What method first[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Help talk:Referencing for beginners#RfC: What method first (Initiated 51 days ago on 13 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Bengali people#List of people in the collage[edit]

An RfC and a survey was opened following inconsistency and edit-war for place in the collage at infobox top. After long discussion a list of 30 people and a resulting collage image was made. This process started on March 31. A total of 122 nominations were made, 29 editors voted, 14 editors discussed, 2 filter systems were discussed and merged, 11 editors have agreed to ratify it, 3 editors complained, 1 editor remained apprehensive. This is time for closing this long discussion. An non-involved admin would be the right person to do it. –nafSadh did say 06:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy#Requesting permission to restore User:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy to mainspace - another round of AfD[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at User talk:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy#Requesting permission to restore User:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy to mainspace - another round of AfD (Initiated 49 days ago on 15 March 2015)? Please note that the discussion is also transcluded to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 31. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Just a sidenote, I believe BusterD assessed the situation that Coffee had opened this as a RfC acting in the capacity of an AfD, so there question becomes whether there was ever consensus to delete the subject. If the outcome does favor me, I still have a few more updates regarding title changes to fix. I feel at worst the contents of the article should allow another round of AfD at worst. Valoem talk contrib 02:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)