Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

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

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 comment is 30 days (opened on or before 25 June 2016); 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[edit]

Requests for Comment[edit]

Template talk:Ethnic_slurs#RFC: Should Jews be classified as Asian, European, or in a standalone category?[edit]

(Initiated 22 days ago on 3 July 2016) This is a rather heated topic which seems to have exhausted itself and a non-involved neutral admin is required to assess whether or not there is consensus (and what that consensus is) and possible next steps for resolution. Electoralist (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#RfC: Allow non-admins to close RfD discussions to "delete"?[edit]

The 30 days runs in about 24 hours. I'm asking for 3 closers, until we get 3 or until a week goes by. If we get 3, great. If we get 1 or 2, I'll probably ask them a couple of questions. If we get 2, I'll probably offer to join them. - Dank (push to talk) 17:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

For the sake of templating: (Initiated 61 days ago on 25 May 2016). Dank, your request for multiple closers sounds weird (how are they going to coordinate, if the point is precisely that they are relatively independent from each other?) but well, whatever works. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Replying in the same-named section at AN. - Dank (push to talk) 17:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, no replies for a week, I'm out. Unwatching. - Dank (push to talk) 10:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@Tigraan and Dank: The request doesn't seem weird to me – when performed, it increases the credibility of the closure. I think how it works is a group of designated closers (usually admins or bureaucrats) discuss how the discussion should be closed either on-wiki or off-wiki (through email or IRC) and then collaborate on a closing statement that they all sign. Such a system isn't unprecedented, especially for particularly contentious discussions: see Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012 (closed by 4 administrators) and Wikipedia:Bureaucrat discussion. Mz7 (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, it seems reasonable to me but I just asked about the "how". I live and learn. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

As no one else came forward to form a committee, I've {{close}} this myself. Mdann52 (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry but I have reopened it. Thanks for trying but this was contentious and there was significant opinion that it is best left for an admin (or a team as suggested above). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I can try to close this if wanted, but the reason I skipped over it my first time through this page is that I've stated in several places that my understanding of the current (prior to whatever this discussion's result is) consensus is that nac cannot close discussions as delete due to not being able to implement a delete close. I believe I've been in at least one discussion where I supported that status quo. I'm not "involved" in this discussion, and I don't think I would be biased in the close, but I wanted to express that disclaimer first before offering to close this. Please feel free to let me know what you think. If you'd like my help, I'm happy to, if you'd prefer not, I'm fine with that too : ) - jc37 21:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC) - While this is all still true, still, I think I'll recuse myself in this case. - jc37 01:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

My two cents is that the idea of a 3-person jury for closing very important and/or difficult discussions is a good idea. I've done it myself and it worked. Rather than any discussion or coordination being needed, you pick three people at random (one of them can be yourself I guess), contact them to see if they will do it, set a 24-hour or so window, and each "votes" their decision with a couple paragraphs or whatever showing their reasoning. Then as soon as all three have voted their decision you just total the votes, its 2-1 or 3-0, and you make the actual close which is just the technical counting of the votes of the three closers.
I would say it would be better to set this up ahead of time though. But it could still be done now, right now, and its good to do new things especially if they're sensible and have been shown to be workable, and fortune favors the brave. Go for it. (I'm not saying the committee/discussion way isn't also a good way maybe.) (Also for a question like this it would be a very good idea IMO to include at least one non-admin on the "jury", for both good procedural and political reasons.)Herostratus (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Just noting that I'm willing to close almost any discussion that I'm not involved in (I'm involved in this one) as part of one of these committees. Anyone can ping me on my talk page to ask me to participate. Perhaps we should have a sign-up page somewhere to randomly select from? Tazerdadog (talk) 07:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
It just occurs to me to point out that we have three people here - User:Jc37, User:Herostratus, and User:Tazerdadog - who would apparently be willing to constitute a jury. So these three people (one admin and two non-admins) could go ahead and do that. Dionysodorus (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Not me, I voted. Herostratus (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, and Tazerdadog said the same actually - I misread you both. So ignore what I just said please. Dionysodorus (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
@Herostratus: FWIW I'm willing to take part in a 3-person jury as an uninvolved non-admin. I'm an active page mover and have a reasonable reputation for working towards consensus in the frame of policy. I've had the opportunity to adjudicate contentious situations before, including digesting walls of text and giving due weight to succinct as well as verbose arguments, and I came to defend my own rationales for closing such debates in a way that obviously couldn't please everyone but was deemed fair. Ping me if/when the process gets going. — JFG talk 14:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
OK well I don't know... as far as I'm concerned you'd be hired. I consider myself fair minded and there's no real reason why I couldn't "hire" two more closers, and then close (but not decide) the discussion with {{Archivetop}} and {{archivebottom}}, then as soon as all three closers have made their decision (or even when two have, if they've decided the same way) do the actual close just based on their decision.
However, all this is going to seem new and odd enough without having someone who's voted being involved in any way shape or form. People will talk. So c'mon, let's have some uninvolved admin step forward here and "hire" JFG and two other people and do as I've outlined. For that person there won'd be much hard work. How to "hire" the 3 closers is up to them... I an envisioning generating some random numbers and applying to the lists of editors or admins, or just closing your eyes and pointing, or something like that... or maybe two more stalwarts will apply as JFG here did... let's do it! I'm sorry I feel I have to disqualify myself from the entire process, purely for the politics of the optics. Herostratus (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#RfC: Allow inclusion of former names in lead section of biographies covering transgender and non-binary people[edit]

Any brave soul want to take a wack at this? It's been open about 6 weeks. I don't think it's urgent, but could use a look over. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#RfC: Is being a finalist in a major championship notable for school articles?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#RfC: Is being a finalist in a major championship notable for school articles? (Initiated 43 days ago on 12 June 2016)? When considering the collapsed "Arguments from prior discussions" section, the discussion's consensus is less clear than just looking at the "Support (yes, it is/may be notable)" and "Oppose (no, it is not notable)" sections. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done. Deryck C. 16:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Southern Levant#RFC on Wording of Lede Paragraph[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Southern Levant#RFC on Wording of Lede Paragraph (Initiated 41 days ago on 14 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done. Deryck C. 18:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Natalie Portman#Does a "major" role need to be cited as such by reliable sources?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Natalie Portman#Does a "major" role need to be cited as such by reliable sources? (Initiated 46 days ago on 9 June 2016)? Please consider Talk:Natalie Portman#RfC: Is the language biased? in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussions[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for discussion[edit]

This discussion forum has an average backlog with approximately 20 discussions that have yet to be closed, the oldest of which is from June 2016. (14:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Files for discussion#Old discussions[edit]

There's 100+ open discussions, some well over two months old. The vast majority of these are easy closures. Would appreciate it if an admin could spend an hour or so clearing these out. Thanks! -FASTILY 08:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Discussions awaiting closure[edit]

There are approximately 50 discussions that have yet to be closed, the oldest of which is from April 25, 2016. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)