Open main menu

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard  (Redirected from Wikipedia:ANRFC)

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.

Billiardball1.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 19 June 2019); 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.

Billiardball2.png

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.

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.

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 which allows archiving of the completed request.

Contents

Requests for closureEdit

Administrative discussionsEdit

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

RfCsEdit

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World Rally#Request for Comment on table formatEdit

(Initiated 131 days ago on 10 March 2019) Could an experienced editor please assess and formslly close this discussion? It has been raised on multiple talk pages and wound up at DRN, where an admin negotiated an RfC. The 30 day period for an RfC has expired (the discussion naturally died out two weeks beforehand), but an editors are interpreting the discussion differently. The RfC really needs a third party to summarise it, please. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

  • comment IMO this discussion is not finished. Yes, there was a 30day period of silence, but it continues now. So I'd say don't close it yet. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: the discussion had run its course and naturally died out after two weeks. You only objected when I moved to implement changes to articles based on the RfC discussion. By your own admission (in the RfC itself no less), you had forgotten about the discussion, so you cannot claim it is ongoing. To do so makes it look like you are stalling to prevent the consensus from being reached, especially given the way you have misrepresented the discussion (by claiming no support for a proposal when at least three editors had supported it) and have tried to draw on the opinions of editors from old discussions outside the RfC to support your position. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Thryduulf: — could I please ask that the RfC be closed with the provision for a new one to be opened? There have been some complaints that the RfC was "not done properly" and some recent comments appear to be trying to subvert the RfC process. In particular, there is a claim that a second consensus is needed: one to agree to a new table format and one to agree that the new format is needed. This appears to be moving the goalposts as theoretically editors could agree to a new format, but if they do not specifically state that they think the new format is needed, then those opposed to change could claim that there is no consensus at all and try to block the change even if they are in an absolute minority. The whole discussion has become a mess, with those opposed to change redirecting the conversation to the RfC process rather than discuss the RfC content as a way of dragging the conversation out and forcing a WP:NOCONSENSUS. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Order of the Arrow#Request for comment regarding DeloriaEdit

(Initiated 114 days ago on 27 March 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Order of the Arrow#Request for comment regarding Deloria? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Richat Structure#RfC about mentioning Fringe TheoryEdit

(Initiated 84 days ago on 26 April 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Richat Structure#RfC about mentioning Fringe Theory? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Polyphenol#Are "polyphenols" polymers of phenol?Edit

(Initiated 76 days ago on 4 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Polyphenol#Are "polyphenols" polymers of phenol?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Frankfurt School#RfC: Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory section - possible splitEdit

(Initiated 73 days ago on 7 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Frankfurt School#RfC: Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory section - possible split? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Juul#Pronunciation in the ledeEdit

(Initiated 71 days ago on 9 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Juul#Pronunciation in the lede? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Lady Louise Windsor#RfC about the infobox used in this article and other similar articlesEdit

(Initiated 70 days ago on 9 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Lady Louise Windsor#RfC about the infobox used in this article and other similar articles? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 215#RfC on gendered nouns in spaceflightEdit

(Initiated 70 days ago on 10 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 215#RfC on gendered nouns in spaceflight? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Harassment#RfC: Clarification of OUTINGEdit

(Initiated 67 days ago on 13 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Harassment#RfC: Clarification of OUTING? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#RfC: Category:Climate change deniersEdit

(Initiated 66 days ago on 14 May 2019) Would an administrator evaluate the consensus in the discussion linked above? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Video games#RFCEdit

(Initiated 63 days ago on 17 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Video games#RFC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Placement of addiction, dependence and withdrawalEdit

(Initiated 63 days ago on 17 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Placement of addiction, dependence and withdrawal? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Help talk:Citation Style 1#Italics of websites in citations and references – request for commentEdit

(Initiated 62 days ago on 18 May 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Help talk:Citation Style 1#Italics of websites in citations and references – request for comment? Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨  02:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

This is huge topic affecting literally all of Wikipedia, and I think more time is needed. I've been a Wikipedia editor a dozen years, and I've only just run across this RfC. There's no deadline, and I'm not sure what it would hurt to let it run longer to give more editors a chance to weigh in on something so momentous. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Axios (website)#RfC: Paid Wikipedia editingEdit

(Initiated 60 days ago on 20 May 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Axios (website)#RfC: Paid Wikipedia editing? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 05:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Chuck Tingle#Request for comments about keeping/editing/deleting list of self-published worksEdit

(Initiated 58 days ago on 22 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Chuck Tingle#Request for comments about keeping/editing/deleting list of self-published works? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC on linking title to PMCEdit

(Initiated 55 days ago on 25 May 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at RfC on linking title to PMC. Thank you. Boghog (talk) 05:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Black Hebrew Israelites#RfC: Is a paragraph about a single incident involving fewer than a dozen Israelites WP:UNDUE?Edit

(Initiated 54 days ago on 25 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Black Hebrew Israelites#RfC: Is a paragraph about a single incident involving fewer than a dozen Israelites WP:UNDUE?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#RfC about the MEK targeting civilians in the ledeEdit

(Initiated 54 days ago on 26 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#RfC about the MEK targeting civilians in the lede? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

  • I'd like to ask an experienced admin take care of it. --Mhhossein talk 05:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Julian Assange#Request for Comment - JournalistEdit

(Initiated 53 days ago on 27 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Julian Assange#Request for Comment - Journalist? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:5G#RfC: Russian disinformationEdit

(Initiated 52 days ago on 28 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:5G#RfC: Russian disinformation? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC - CoinDesk as a sourceEdit

(Initiated 50 days ago on 29 May 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC - CoinDesk as a source? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 19:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal for a new file naming criteria: harmonize extension nameEdit

(Initiated 50 days ago on 29 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal for a new file naming criteria: harmonize extension name? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:RT (TV network)#RfC: PropagandaEdit

(Initiated 49 days ago on 30 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:RT (TV network)#RfC: Propaganda? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Hafte Tir bombing#RFC about making more natural leadEdit

(Initiated 45 days ago on 3 June 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hafte Tir bombing#RFC about making more natural lead? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:William Happer#RfC: Comparing demonization of CO2 with "Jews under Hitler"Edit

(Initiated 45 days ago on 3 June 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:William Happer#RfC: Comparing demonization of CO2 with "Jews under Hitler"? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Virginia Beach shooting#RfC: Should the page include the victims' names?Edit

(Initiated 44 days ago on 5 June 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess this RfC? There have been no fresh !votes for quite some time. Thanks. WWGB (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Indigenous intellectual property#RfC: Should the 'A history of claims and declarations...' section be an exhaustive list?Edit

(Initiated 43 days ago on 5 June 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Indigenous intellectual property#RfC: Should the 'A history of claims and declarations...' section be an exhaustive list?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:Marriage#SeparationEdit

(Initiated 41 days ago on 8 June 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Marriage#Separation? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability#Train stationsEdit

(Initiated 40 days ago on 8 June 2019) This subject has proved controversial, and with a high editor participation a neutral, experienced editor is required to assess and provide the close. It would be preferable if it was closed by someone not connected with the trains wikiproject or a regular trains editor as that could be perceived as non-neutral. SpinningSpark 23:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Jimmy Dore#RfC: "a far-left show known for promoting conspiracy theories"Edit

(Initiated 40 days ago on 8 June 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jimmy Dore#RfC: "a far-left show known for promoting conspiracy theories"? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Bengal famine of 1943#RfC: Material from the 2019 Geophysical Research Letters studyEdit

(Initiated 37 days ago on 11 June 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bengal famine of 1943#RfC: Material from the 2019 Geophysical Research Letters study? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Rheumatoid arthritis#Lead imageEdit

(Initiated 36 days ago on 12 June 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Rheumatoid arthritis#Lead image? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Header textEdit

(Initiated 36 days ago on 12 June 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Header text? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Audi_Q3#RfC about 2nd generation infobox photoEdit

(Initiated 32 days ago on 16 June 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Audi Q3? Thanks, --Vauxford (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Bill Shorten#RfC: Rape allegationEdit

(Initiated 28 days ago on 21 June 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Bill Shorten? Thank you!--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair#RfC: An alternative version of the lead sentence to the lead in SNC-Lavalin affairEdit

(Initiated 10 days ago on 8 July 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at SNC-Lavalin affair? Thank you!--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of quick closure
I will note, as the closer of the last RfC, that I agree with Daryl that this RfC short circuited what appeared to be an a move toward consensus and is just as likely to extend the debate as it is to find consensus and thus end the dispute. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
To be clearer, we're asking for this to be speedy closed and a better RfC to be started, possibly after more discussion. Safrolic (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I've opened a new RfC with all of the options (including the one being considered in this RfC). Can an experienced editor please close this one? – Anne drew 18:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Note - Littleolive oil whom opened this RfC has removed the template and closed it. A formal closure from an uninvolved editor may no longer be required.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Safrolic has also archived the RfC discussion. So again a formal close from an uninvolved editor may be unnecessary.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Extended discussion
Wow! I have never seen a move like this in my time at Wikipedia. Congratulations. This was an honest move to look at a third option after an RfC did not find consensus for use of either of two contested words. Barkeeper, you suggested three options. I was requesting comment for an option that has been ignored.
It is within the right of any editor to request for comment. If others don't like it they can "vote" that way. But removing a right to ask for comment on a legitimate option in a controversial discussion is inappropriate as is the bad faith assumption. And I never particularly cared about the outcome of this discussion however wrong I think it is; I do care about control and ownership and I don't like personal attacks however indirect. Littleolive oil (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Nobody is saying you aren't allowed to ask for comment on a legitimate option in a controversial discussion. But when we're supposed to avoid creating multiple simultaneous RfCs on significantly overlapping topics, it's not appropriate to build an RfC which specifically excludes the two options which are most popular. This has the effect of derailing discussion for the period the RfC is open- by default, a month. What's more, it's an RfC on whether your preference is acceptable, in which you've placed your preference as a 'stopgap', on an article we just had an arbitration case regarding edit-warring in. This means you're effectively asking for the right to make us wait a month with your preference as the status quo, which we can't change, before we can open up an actually productive RfC, when every other voter so far has opposed you. I believe you made this RfC in good faith, but it's time now to withdraw it and create one with all the other options on the table too. Safrolic (talk) 10:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Before an RfC is issued, there must be at least a consensus among the involved editors as to what to ask in the RfC. This particular RfC, close on the heels of the earlier one, was certainly premature. Close it please! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
No that's not true, actually Kautilya3. There does not need to be consensus among editors to hold an RfC. If it were you'd have RfCs about whether to have an RfC. An RfC is SO VERY simply a request for outside input. And Safrolic Please stop making things up. This was not my first preference as you should well know since I supported controversy to your scandal and discussed it multiple times. RfCS DO OFTEN OVERLAP in terms of content on contentious articles. And this RfCs was not simultaneous with any other RfC. And do you hear me when I say this RfC does not stop or slow down discussion on other solutions. RfCs can occur concurrently with discussion. Then if and when consensus is reached in either place edits can be made. There is something wrong here. I don't like having stories told about me that aren't true. And I don't like false information about what is going on in an article. You or anyone else can close down this RfC; I'm not attached to it nor was I attached to the edits I made. I am attached to truth. That's why I've removed this article from my watch list. I will not continue to edit where I am falsely represented or reports on article interactions are misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talkcontribs) 15:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Deletion discussionsEdit

XFD backlog
  Apr May Jun Jul TOTAL
CfD 1 23 56 52 132
TfD 0 0 0 2 2
MfD 2 0 6 15 23
FfD 0 0 5 5 10
AfD 0 0 0 7 7

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:KoreaEdit

(Initiated 90 days ago on 19 April 2019) Discussion stalled since 5 May 2019‎. Please will an uninvolved closer assess the consensus here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion has resumed. Needs either a close or a formal Relist and attention to the need for a close in one more week. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Mixed bag of group portalsEdit

(Initiated 88 days ago on 22 April 2019) Please will an admin assess the consensus here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

This may be a train wreck. The closer may need to decide whether to close each of the nominations separately or to send this back to square one. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 21#Category:Abortion survivorsEdit

(Initiated 58 days ago on 21 May 2019) open since May 21, no new comments since June 1 — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:VermontEdit

(Initiated 24 days ago on 25 June 2019) Discussion ended on 4 July. Will an administrator please assess the consensus here. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:WyomingEdit

(Initiated 23 days ago on 25 June 2019) Discussion ended on 4 July. Will an administrator please assess the consensus here. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:ColoradoEdit

(Initiated 23 days ago on 25 June 2019) Discussion (some of which was uncivil) ended on 8 July. Will an administrator please assess the consensus here. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:New MexicoEdit

(Initiated 23 days ago on 25 June 2019) Discussion ended on 4 July. Will an administrator please assess the consensus here. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Papua New GuineaEdit

(Initiated 21 days ago on 28 June 2019) Discussion ended on 9 July. Will an administrator please assess the consensus here. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:IowaEdit

(Initiated 21 days ago on 28 June 2019) Discussion ended on 11 July. Will an administrator please assess the consensus here. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Seventh-day Adventist ChurchEdit

(Initiated 16 days ago on 3 July 2019) Discussion is continuing (and is rather animated). A Relist may be better than a close, but will an administrator please assess the consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:BiochemistryEdit

(Initiated 10 days ago on 8 July 2019) Discussion is continuing, and is sometimes uncivil. Either a Relist or a close is in order. Will an administrator please assess the consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Other types of closing requestsEdit

Talk:Manny Pacquiao#Bible QuoteEdit

(Initiated 660 days ago on 26 September 2017) Could an uninvolved editor please close this discussion regarding the material removed in this edit?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Remove "suspected perpetrator" field in Template:Infobox civilian attackEdit

(Initiated 119 days ago on 22 March 2019) Would an uninvolved closer please assess the consensus here. TompaDompa (talk) 01:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010#Disruptive editing on Taiwan regarding English varietyEdit

(Initiated 70 days ago on 10 May 2019) – Would an administrator assess this issue and take necessary action please. Ythlev (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC) @DannyS712: Stale discussions are exactly the ones that need admin involvement according to this page. Is no action to be taken against disruptive editing? Ythlev (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 267#Strange Fox News story about AOC and climate changeEdit

(Initiated 52 days ago on 28 May 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 267#Strange Fox News story about AOC and climate change? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 03:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 June#Boeing 737 MAXEdit

(Initiated 47 days ago on 1 June 2019) Uninvolved admin needed for this one. Calidum 05:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 June#Mark JacksonEdit

(Initiated 43 days ago on 6 June 2019) Please close. Paine Ellsworthed. put'r there  15:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2019 Brecon and Radnorshire recall petition#Merge?Edit

(Initiated 27 days ago on 21 June 2019) A merge request on the borderline of consensus which involved two pairs of articles. A zealous editor went ahead and merged one pair but not the other, leading to an inconstancy. The second pair either needs to be merged or the first merge should be undone. --LukeSurl t c 11:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

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