Open main menu

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

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 September 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

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive314#Request for reclosure of RfC on Tulsi Gabbard's BLP (Assad/Modi)Edit

(Initiated 87 days ago on 24 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive314#Request for reclosure of RfC on Tulsi Gabbard's BLP (Assad/Modi)? This is an RfC close review that was archived without closure on 6 October 2019. Like deletion reviews, RfC close reviews should be formally assessed to determine whether the RfC close was correct or incorrect. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

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

RfCsEdit

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_6#RfC: Header textEdit

(Initiated 128 days ago on 12 June 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_6#RfC: Header text? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: Moratorium on "general reliability" RFCsEdit

(Initiated 97 days ago on 14 July 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: Moratorium on "general reliability" RFCs? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 17:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 153#RFC:Purposes of Portals (19 July 2019)Edit

(Initiated 92 days ago on 19 July 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please asses the consensus at this RFC: Purposes of Portals (19 July 2019) RfC on the purposes of portals?  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 10#RfC on inclusion of claims in Panorama documentary and 64 peers' letter (advertisement)Edit

(Initiated 91 days ago on 20 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 10#RfC on inclusion of claims in Panorama documentary and 64 peers' letter (advertisement)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Immigration and crime in Germany#RfC: "By Region" sectionEdit

(Initiated 82 days ago on 29 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Immigration and crime in Germany#RfC: "By Region" section? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 176#Suppress rendering of Template:Wikipedia booksEdit

(Initiated 73 days ago on 6 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Suppress rendering of Template:Wikipedia books? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests#Rfc on including Junius Ho in the infobox of this article which use Template:Infobox civil conflictEdit

(Initiated 67 days ago on 12 August 2019) Seeking an experienced and uninvolved editor to assess the consensus at Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests#Rfc on including Junius Ho in the infobox of this article which use Template:Infobox civil conflict. Matthew hk (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#RfC about the MEK's appeal in its homelandEdit

(Initiated 57 days ago on 23 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#RfC about the MEK's appeal in its homeland? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Montenegrin language#RfC about minority languages in infoboxEdit

(Initiated 54 days ago on 26 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Montenegrin language#RfC about minority languages in infobox? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:David Koch#Lede rfcEdit

(Initiated 51 days ago on 29 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:David Koch#Lede rfc? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Opinion polling for the next Italian general election#RfC on "Government/Other" columnsEdit

(Initiated 50 days ago on 30 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Opinion polling for the next Italian general election#RfC on "Government/Other" columns? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

No new input since 20 September 2019, the bot removed the RfC tag at 19:01, 29 September 2019‎ (UTC). Needs consensus assessment and subsequent closure by an uninvolved editor. Impru20talk 15:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:List of music considered the worst#RFC for album inclusionEdit

(Initiated 49 days ago on 30 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of music considered the worst#RFC for album inclusion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Will do. WBGconverse 03:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Century#RFC: Are August 2019 edits in accord with March 2019 RFC above?Edit

(Initiated 49 days ago on 31 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Century#RFC: Are August 2019 edits in accord with March 2019 RFC above?? I closed the March 2019 RfC and will leave this RfC to another closer. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:U.S. state#Request for comment on state-equivalentsEdit

(Initiated 48 days ago on 1 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:U.S. state#Request for comment on state-equivalents? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Paul Stamets#RfC about description of Paul Stamets in the ledeEdit

(Initiated 46 days ago on 3 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Paul Stamets#RfC about description of Paul Stamets in the lede? I am not closing this RfC as some of the supports are qualified supports. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 161#RFC: Block edits that contain a VisualEditor bugEdit

(Initiated 45 days ago on 3 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RFC: Block edits that contain a VisualEditor bug? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Since the RfC is about the creation of an edit filter, I'm leaving a note at the edit filter noticeboard requesting that it be closed by an edit filter manager; it seems pretty clear that the consensus is for the creation of a filter, but such a decision could only be enacted by an efm. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: books in leadEdit

(Initiated 43 days ago on 6 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: books in lead? Thanks, ―Mandruss  23:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Andy_Ngo#RfC:_Do_sources_support_calling_Ngo's_statements_on_the_hammer_attack_"false"?Edit

(Initiated 40 days ago on 9 September 2019) RfC requesting an admin closing. Thanks, Springee (talk) 02:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: "The Western Journal" (September)Edit

(Initiated 39 days ago on 9 September 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: "The Western Journal" (September)? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 00:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Israeli settlement#RFC on Bill in Republic of IrelandEdit

(Initiated 31 days ago on 18 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus here please. Selfstudier (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Deletion discussionsEdit

XFD backlog
  Jul Aug Sep Oct TOTAL
CfD 0 4 16 21 41
TfD 0 0 0 9 9
MfD 0 0 0 6 6
FfD 0 0 3 1 4
AfD 0 0 0 0 0

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_August_4#Category:Institutes of the Roman CuriaEdit

(Initiated 87 days ago on 24 July 2019) Would an experience editor please close this discussion? --Trialpears (talk) 11:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done by MER-C. ToThAc (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Other types of closing requestsEdit

Talk:2019 World Rally ChampionshipEdit

(Initiated 176 days ago on 26 April 2019) Would an experienced editor or administrator please review this discussion? An older discussion on the subject exists and might need to be considered as well.Tvx1 11:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Autism#How should those with the condition be referred?Edit

(Initiated 101 days ago on 10 July 2019) Would an uninvolved editor or administrator please review this discussion? Thank you. Note: This discussion started as an RFC, but the RCF was malformed, so it is not an RFC. Just a regular discussion. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 05:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:BFR (rocket)#A small step forward, given SpaceX new (once again) renaming of the vehiclesEdit

(Initiated 18 days ago on 1 October 2019) Would an uninvolved editor or administrator please review this discussion? Thank you. --Soumyabrata (talksubpages) 17:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:ITS_launch_vehicle#Merger_proposalEdit

(Initiated 15 days ago on 4 October 2019) Could an experienced and uninvolved editor please review this merger proposal. Thank you. N2e (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

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