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 17 August 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 closure[edit]

Administrative discussions[edit]

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 4 heading[edit]

RfCs[edit]

Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#RfC about the MEK targeting civilians in the lede[edit]

(Initiated 113 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)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC - CoinDesk as a source[edit]

(Initiated 110 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)

Talk:Hafte Tir bombing#RFC about making more natural lead[edit]

(Initiated 105 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:Virginia Beach shooting#RfC: Should the page include the victims' names?[edit]

(Initiated 103 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)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Racist, sexist, homophobic, and transphobic[edit]

(Initiated 100 days ago on 8 June 2019) Near-unanimous result, so an easy close. It's a guideline wording change, so best closed by an admin. — AReaderOutThatawayt/c 15:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Bengal famine of 1943#RfC: Material from the 2019 Geophysical Research Letters study[edit]

(Initiated 96 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 image[edit]

(Initiated 95 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)  Done Cinderella157 (talk) 07:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Header text[edit]

(Initiated 95 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:EOKA#Death toll[edit]

(Initiated 88 days ago on 20 June 2019) There is a RfC at this section. Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus? Thanks, Cinadon36 08:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Ronald Reagan#RfC (Request for Comment) on drug trafficking aspect of Iran-Contra[edit]

(Initiated 87 days ago on 20 June 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ronald Reagan#RfC (Request for Comment) on drug trafficking aspect of Iran-Contra? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The American Conservative[edit]

(Initiated 80 days ago on 28 June 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The American Conservative? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 22:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 12#RfC: antifa and terrorism[edit]

(Initiated 74 days ago on 3 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 12#RfC: antifa and terrorism? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Archive 4#RfC: Should we use Breitbart News as a source regarding the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram?[edit]

(Initiated 73 days ago on 5 July 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor administrator please assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Archive 4#RfC: Should we use Breitbart News as a source regarding the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 10:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC) One editor in the discussion specifically requested a closure by an administrator. — Newslinger talk 11:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party#Jeremy Corbyn vs. the Labour Party[edit]

(Initiated 71 days ago on 6 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party#Jeremy Corbyn vs. the Labour Party? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Add 'create an article' option in the interface[edit]

(Initiated 71 days ago on 7 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Add 'create an article' option in the interface? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Gatestone Institute#RfC: Description as conservative and anti-Muslim in the first line of the lede[edit]

(Initiated 70 days ago on 8 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gatestone Institute#RfC: Description as conservative and anti-Muslim in the first line of the lede? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings#RfC about info box accused = Brenton Harrison Tarrant[edit]

(Initiated 68 days ago on 10 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings#RfC about info box accused = Brenton Harrison Tarrant? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Constantinople#RFC on whether to change the end date of this article to 1930[edit]

(Initiated 66 days ago on 12 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Constantinople#RFC on whether to change the end date of this article to 1930? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Taki's Magazine[edit]

(Initiated 65 days ago on 13 July 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Taki's Magazine? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 17:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: Moratorium on "general reliability" RFCs[edit]

(Initiated 64 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)

Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair#RfC about the first sentence[edit]

(Initiated 60 days ago on 17 July 2019) When the time comes, would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair#RfC about the first sentence? Thanks--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Note to closer - This RfC should be allowed to run its course. I have just posted it here now so there is some advance notice. The topic of the RfC was originally discussed in this first RfC which was closed without consensus being reached. For much of the time it was open, editing on this article had been before ArbCom. Following that, a second RfC was opened and then closed early so other options could also be considered. A straw poll had occurred at the same time. This third RfC began to consider all options shortly thereafter.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

This RfC is ready to be closed. Safrolic (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 153#RFC: Formalize Standing of Portal Guidelines as a Guideline (18 July 2019)[edit]

(Initiated 59 days ago on 18 July 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please asses the consensus at this CENT-advertised RfC on the status of the portal guideline? Wug·a·po·des​ 03:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Next United Kingdom general election#RfC about the infobox[edit]

(Initiated 59 days ago on 19 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Next United Kingdom general election#RfC about the infobox? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Resysop criteria: RfC on principles[edit]

(Initiated 58 days ago on 20 July 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Resysop criteria: RfC on principles? Thank you. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party#RfC on inclusion of claims in Panorama documentary and 64 peers' letter (advertisement)[edit]

(Initiated 57 days ago on 20 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party#RfC on inclusion of claims in Panorama documentary and 64 peers' letter (advertisement)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Naming conventions for public statues[edit]

(Initiated 56 days ago on 21 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Naming conventions for public statues? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Alt-right#RfC about the opening sentence[edit]

(Initiated 55 days ago on 23 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alt-right#RfC about the opening sentence? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Abby Martin#RfC: 9/11 Truther[edit]

(Initiated 55 days ago on 23 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Abby Martin#RfC: 9/11 Truther? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests#RfC:Change title[edit]

(Initiated 49 days ago on 28 July 2019) Would an uninvolved eitor please assess the consensus on this RfC on the wording of a section of the article., even that section of the article had been moved to sub-article. Matthew hk (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
this was closed by another ed. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
The discussion appears to still to be open. — Newslinger talk 06:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Please review Talk:2019_Hong_Kong_protests#RfC:Change_title. This thread seems to have been deleted from this page without reason. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: It wasn't deleted, it was moved. There were three reasons: one, you posted it in the wrong section; two, it had already been requested by somebody else - who had posted their request in the proper section; third, duplicate requests waste peoples time. For those reasons, I shall shortly be moving this request also. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Comment - This discussion is still open. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Great Famine of 1876–1878#RFC on British policy[edit]

(Initiated 48 days ago on 29 July 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus? GPRamirez5 (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#RfC about including the MEK's current principles[edit]

(Initiated 45 days ago on 1 August 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus on this RfC? Legobot keeps removing RfC ID, so was adviced to bring it here for closure. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Suicide_methods#RFC:_Hatnote_at_top[edit]

(Initiated 44 days ago on 2 August 2019) Would an experienced, uninvolved editor - preferably an administrator - please assess the consensus here? This has been outstanding for over a month and discussion has pretty much entirely died down. Gimubrc (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2019 El Paso shooting#Include or exclude victim names[edit]

(Initiated 42 days ago on 4 August 2019) Would an uninvolved closer please assess the consensus here. See also the similar discussion at Talk:2019 Dayton shooting#Include or exclude victim names. TompaDompa (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2019 Dayton shooting#Include or exclude victim names[edit]

(Initiated 42 days ago on 4 August 2019) Would an uninvolved closer please assess the consensus here. See also the similar discussion at Talk:2019 El Paso shooting#Include or exclude victim names. TompaDompa (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC about articles on three digit numbers[edit]

(Initiated 39 days ago on 7 August 2019) Seeking an experienced and uninvolved editor to assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC about articles on three digit numbers. Thanks in advance! — JFG talk 23:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 34 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)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Naming countries in infoboxes[edit]

(Initiated 30 days ago on 16 August 2019) There appears to be a consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Naming countries in infoboxes. But since one editor in particular was strongly opposed, would an uninvolved editor please assess it? Thanks. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Campus sexual assault#RFC on weighting sexual assault research[edit]

(Initiated 30 days ago on 16 August 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Campus sexual assault#RFC on weighting sexual assault research? This is slightly under the 30 day mark, but there's been no discussion for a week. Thanks! Nblund talk 16:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2019_Hong_Kong_protests#Rfc_on_including_Junius_Ho_in_the_infobox_of_this_article_which_use_Template:Infobox_civil_conflict[edit]

(Initiated 33 days ago on 14 August 2019) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading[edit]

Deletion discussions[edit]

XFD backlog
  Jun Jul Aug Sep TOTAL
CfD 4 16 21 23 64
TfD 0 0 1 7 8
MfD 0 0 0 2 2
FfD 0 0 0 0 0
AfD 0 0 0 15 15

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 20#What wp is not[edit]

(Initiated 70 days ago on 8 July 2019) Would an experienced administrator please close this discussion? Most WP:RFD regulars, including administrators, have already participated in this discussion, leaving few options for potential closers. Steel1943 (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 August 13#Template:Infoshops[edit]

(Initiated 51 days ago on 27 July 2019) Most WP:TfD regulars have participated, so few closers available. czar 19:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 4 heading[edit]

Other types of closing requests[edit]

Talk:2019 World Rally Championship[edit]

(Initiated 143 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)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010#Disruptive editing on Taiwan regarding English variety[edit]

(Initiated 129 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)

Talk:2019 Arizona Hotshots season#Merger proposals[edit]

(Initiated 115 days ago on 23 May 2019) Could someone close this discussion if there is a clear consensus? If the decision is made to merge the articles I can do so myself. Thanks! Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 267#Strange Fox News story about AOC and climate change[edit]

(Initiated 111 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)

Talk:2019 Brecon and Radnorshire recall petition#Merge?[edit]

(Initiated 87 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)

Talk:911#Merge 9/11 (disambiguation)[edit]

(Initiated 62 days ago on 15 July 2019) Seems to have run its course, but not listed where administrators can see to close. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2019_El_Paso_shooting#Include_or_exclude_victim_names[edit]

(Initiated 42 days ago on 4 August 2019) Please review Talk:2019_El_Paso_shooting#Include_or_exclude_victim_names. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Ariane 5#Article length, and possible solution[edit]

(Initiated 40 days ago on 7 August 2019) The discussion is older than 10 August, so it should be closed. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (talksubpages) 09:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 4 heading[edit]