Misplaced Pages:Closure requests: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:02, 24 May 2012 editS Marshall (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers32,413 edits Nother one← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 16:25, 7 January 2025 edit undoBarkeep49 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, New page reviewers, Oversighters, Administrators40,862 edits →Talk:Nikolai_Rimsky-Korsakov#RFC_on_Infobox_for_Nikolai_Rimsky-Korsakov: done
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{admin backlog}}
	<includeonly>:This section is transcluded from ].</includeonly>
			<!--
	__NEWSECTIONLINK__
			-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
	<noinclude>
			New entries go down at the BOTTOM of this page and not up here.
	{{adminbacklog}}
			-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
	{{shortcut\|WP:ANRFC\|WP:AN/RFC}}
			-->
	{{archive box\|box-width=250px\|
			{{redirect\|WP:CR\|text=You may be looking for ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]}}
	image=]\|
			{{redirect\|WP:ANC\|text=You may be looking for ]}}
	:'''], ]'''
			{{Noticeboard links \| style = border: 2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin: 2px 0; \| titlestyle = background-color: #AAD1FF; \| groupstyle = background-color: #CAE1FF; }}
			]
			{{Archive basics
			\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive %(counter)d
			\|counter = 37
			\|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
			\|maxsize = 256000
	}}		}}
			{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
	</noinclude>
			\|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive
	== Requests for closure ==
			\|format= %%i
	<!-- IF EMPTY, PLEASE PLACE THIS LINE BELOW:
			\|age=4368
			\|archivenow=<!-- <nowiki>{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}},{{resolved,{{Resolved,{{done,{{Done,{{DONE,{{already done,{{Already done,{{not done,{{Not done,{{notdone,{{close,{{Close,{{nd,{{tick,{{xXxX</nowiki> -->
			\|header={{Aan}}
			\|headerlevel=3
			\|maxarchsize=256000
			\|minkeepthreads=0
			\|numberstart=16
			}}{{Archives\|auto=short\|search=yes\|bot=ClueBot III}}
			{{Shortcut\|WP:CR\|WP:RFCL\|WP:ANRFC}}

			<section begin=Instructions/>Use the '''closure requests noticeboard''' to ask an uninvolved editor to ]. Do so when ] appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our ]).
	*''There are no requests for closure''
	PLACE REQUEST FOR CLOSURE AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS LIST -->

			] '''Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.'''
	===]===
	Would someone be so kind as to close out this RFC? ] (]) 09:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

			Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, ] to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.
	=== RFC at ] ===
	Would an uninvolved admin please close and summarize the RFC at ]?--] (]) 00:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

			] '''Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.'''
	===]===
	Would an admin close and summarize ]? Thanks, ] (]) 00:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
	*This discussion was archived to ]. ] <sup><font color="#E3A857">]</font></sup><sub> <font color="#008000">]</font></sub> 12:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
	**I had a look at this, and I can't find any consensus for doing anything. Although there is certainly substantial community disapproval of disruption, especially in articlespace, there is no agreement on what that means or what to do about preventing it. Personally, I would suggest ] be tasked with collaborating on pranks in advance, so that we don't get such a proliferation of "hey, wouldn't this be funny" individual acts. However, even if stressing that such collaboration didn't amount to requiring Department of Fun ''approval'', I'm sure some would say that this would be ] and kill the fun. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

			On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. '''Do not continue the discussion here'''.
	===]===
	Would an admin close and summarize ]? Thanks, ] (]) 00:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

			There is no fixed length for a formal ] (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.
	===] and other MfDs===
	Would an admin (or admins) close:
	#<s>]</s> {{done\|closed}}. ] (]) 06:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
	#]
	#]
	#] - {{done\|closed}} by {{user\|TenPoundHammer}}. ] <sup><font color="#E3A857">]</font></sup><sub> <font color="#008000">]</font></sub> 23:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
	#] - {{done\|closed}} by {{admin\|Timotheus Canens}}. ] <sup><font color="#E3A857">]</font></sup><sub> <font color="#008000">]</font></sub> 12:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
	#] - {{done\|closed}} by {{admin\|Timotheus Canens}}. ] <sup><font color="#E3A857">]</font></sup><sub> <font color="#008000">]</font></sub> 12:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
	Thanks, ] (]) 00:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

			] '''When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure'''.
	===]===
	Please close ], thanks!! – ] <sup>(])</sup> 08:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
	:{{cross}} '''Not done,''' thirty days have not yet elapsed, and the latest comment is only four days old. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 09:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' The 30 days of RFC will elapse will be reached on 23 May 2012. ] <sup><font color="#E3A857">]</font></sup><sub> <font color="#008000">]</font></sub> 18:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

			Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{tl\|Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A ] can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.
	=== Nation of Islam RfC ===

			]
	Could an uninvolved administrator close the RfC at ]. Thank you. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 13:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
			'''Any ] may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.'''

			Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if ]. You should be familiar with all ] that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the ] page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.
	===]===
	This is archived but there is still one DRV open. ] (]) 17:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
	:Reposting this as it was removed under the mistaken assumption that it was the same DRV from another post. ] (]) 00:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

			'''Non-admins can close ''most'' discussions'''. ] your ] just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions ], or where implementing the closure ]. ] and ] processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.
	===]===
			{{cot\|title=Technical instructions for closers}}
	It's been eight days since the original post. What is the result of this discussion? --] (]) 09:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
			Please append {{tlx\|Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{tlx\|Close}} or {{tlx\|Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{tlx\|Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{tlx\|Not done}}. '''After addressing a request, please mark the {{tlx\|Initiated}} template with {{para\|done\|yes}}.''' ] will ] requests marked with {{tlx\|Already done}}, {{tlx\|Close}}, {{tlx\|Done}} {{tlx\|Not done}}, and {{tlx\|Resolved}}.
			{{cob}}
			'''If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here'''. Instead follow advice at ].

			<section end=Instructions/>
	=== ] ===
			{{TOC limit\|4}}
			]

			== Other areas tracking old discussions ==
	Would an admin summarize ]? A close was requested at ], and the RfC was delisted due to inactivity but was not summarized. A summary will allow the subject and participants to have a third-party list the RfC's findings.
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]

			== Administrative discussions ==
	When I saw http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=493621214#User:Fae at WP:AN, I reviewed the RfC/U and found that unlike the most recent RfC/Us at ] it had not been summarized.
			<!--
			Please place entries ordered by the date the discussion was initiated (oldest at top)

			Please ensure you add the {{initiated\|date here}} template when placing a request here
	] and ] are two excellent examples of how complex RfC/Us are summarized. ] (]) 07:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
	:Discussion originally closed by {{user\|Nobody Ent}}. . ] <sup><font color="#E3A857">]</font></sup><sub> <font color="#008000">]</font></sub> 10:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
	::No consensus was reached. I closed it per iar as no one else seemed willing to it. My more personal summary may be found ]. <small>]</small> 20:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
	:::Added a note to the top of the page pointing to the summary of the RFC/U , and I think this can be marked as {{tl\|done}}. ] <sup><font color="#E3A857">]</font></sup><sub> <font color="#008000">]</font></sub> 21:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
	::::Your close was (correctly) reverted by another editor because the close merely linked to ] which is a very sarcastic (but accurate) summary of the situation. ] (]) 02:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
	:::::Umm, no, it's not correct to revert in such a situation. It's fine to disagree but not to unilaterally overturn it. ] (]) 07:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
	::::::BTW it's not even my close, I just linked to the closer's summary. ] <sup><font color="#E3A857">]</font></sup><sub> <font color="#008000">]</font></sub> 08:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

			* PLEASE don't archive old discussions yourself!  Let a bot do it.  Archiving the done close requests triggers the bot to do other essential things. *
	*Whether it was meant to be sarcastic or serious or a mixture of both, a comment that refers to other editors as "a bunch of homophobes" should have been stricken from the RfC's talk page entirely, not propped up as an honest evaluation of the matter. ] (]) 13:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
			Place new administrative discussions below this line using a level 3 heading -->
	:*In that case, the RFC/U still needs a proper summary. ] <sup><font color="#E3A857">]</font></sup><sub> <font color="#008000">]</font></sub> 15:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
	::*I would have thought it obvious that "a bunch of homophobes" was Nobody Ent's (admittedly sarcastic) summary of one of the arguments put forward in the RfC/U. It's very obvious from the context and tone of his summary that he's attempting to reflect the various arguments in a relatively lighthearted fashion. I'm sure that some will be upset that he's declined to take the outcome of the RfC/U seriously, which is quite understandable given what a circus it was and what a thorough mess it ended up being. ] (]) 19:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
	:::*Regarding , I would say that our comprehension is working just fine, thanks. I addressed the possibility of sarcasm in my comment here earlier, but wil note again that even if it was intended was sarcasm, it was still inappropriate. It would be preferable if someone else provided a mature and serious summation of the RfC. ] (]) 19:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

			=== ]===
	=== ] ===
			{{initiated\|17:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)}} challenge of close at AN was archived ''']''' - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	Discussion was open for more than one month is inactive since 26 April 2012. ] <sup><font color="#E3A857">]</font></sup><sub> <font color="#008000">]</font></sub> 15:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
			=== ] ===
			{{initiated\|18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)}} ] (]/]) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			===Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading===
			{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|2147483647}}

	=== ~~Another request~~ for ~~closure~~ ===		== Requests for comment ==
			<!--
			Please place entries ordered by the date the RFC was initiated (oldest at top)

			Please ensure you add the {{initiated\|date here}} template when placing a request here
	:<small>Moved from AN. ] (]) 19:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)</small>
	I would like someone to look at ]; there is a "view" subscribed to by a large enough number of editors at ] and a move to close at ]. Editor in question has had ample opportunity to show a dedication to cease disruptive editing (in this case, filibustering and stalling) and has not seized that opportunity. This has been running since 12 May. Thank you in advance. ] (]) 15:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

			* PLEASE don't archive old discussions yourself! Let a bot do it. Archiving the done close requests triggers the bot to do other essential things. *
	==== ] ====
			-->
	:<small>Moved from later on this board. ] 19:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)</small>
	After attempting multiple times to get some sort of acknowledgment of the issues at hand we see a widining circle of disruption on multiple pages (Now at WP:SPI) therefore I request an uninvolved admin to step in and close down the soapbox. In no way am I advocating for any action to be taken in response to the contents of the RfC/U. I am simply asking for the closure as it is obvious to me that there will be no negotiated agreement between the certifiers and the respondant. ] (]) 19:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

			=== ] ===
	=== Request close of quadruple RM ===
			{{initiated\|22:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)}} Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. ] (]) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

			===] ===
	:<small>Moved from AN. ] (]) 19:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)</small>
			{{Initiated\|11:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)}} Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - ] (]) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
	(I hope this is the right place to make a request of this type. If not, please let me know.)
			:{{a note}} This is a ] and subject to ]. - ] (]) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''] ''''']''''' , ] ] <small>22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)</small>

			=== ] ===
	Namely:
			{{Initiated\|19:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)}} RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. ] (]) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	* ] → {{noredirect\|1=Book of Chronicles}}
	* ] → {{noredirect\|1=Book of Samuel}}
	* ] → {{noredirect\|1=Book of Kings}}
	* ] → {{noredirect\|1=Book of Kings (disambiguation)}}

			=== ] ===
	It's been at ] for nearly a month and is quite stale at this point, I believe. Both sides had good points, and I wish we could have gotten a wider range of input. There is no clear consensus at the moment, however, and it doesn't look as though one is going to develop any time soon. ] (]) (]) 18:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
			{{Initiated\|16:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)}}
	:The actual discussion can be found at ]. ] <sup><font color="#E3A857">]</font></sup><sub> <font color="#008000">]</font></sub> 21:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
			Clear consensus that the proposed edit (and its amended version) violate ]. However, the owning editor is engaging in ] behavior, repeatedly arguing against the consensus and dismissing others' rationale as not fitting his personal definition of synthesis; and is persistently assuming bad-faith, including . When finally challenged to give a direct quote from the source that supports the proposed edit, it was dismissed with "" and then The discussion is being driven into a ground by an editor who does not (nor wish to) understand consensus and can't be ] with any opposing argument supported by Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines. --] (]) 22:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	::{{done\|closed}} - <b>]</b> 12:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

	=== ~~RfC on~~ ] ===		=== ] ===
			{{initiated\|22:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)}} Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. '']''<sup>]</sup> 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{a note}} Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. ] (]) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

			===]===
	An ] concerning reference style that was opened on April 12. ]! <sup>]</sup> 22:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
			{{initiated\|15:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)\|done=yes}} The last comment on this was on 24 December 2024 and Legobot has removed the RFC tag. An independent closer (preferably an admin) would be welcome. Many thanks - ] (]) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{done}} Best, ] (]) 16:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

			=== Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading ===
	=== ] and other requests ===
			{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|2147483647}}
	] has a severe backlog; the oldest entries date from January.
			<!-- Place this line below the heading:
	Would an admin (or admins) review:
			{{Initiated\|<date and time when RfC was opened, in the format as would be produced by ~~~~~>}}
	#]
			If the discussion is not an RfC (which is the default), add a \|type=xxx code for the discussion type, e.g. \|type=drv for deletion review; see Template:Initiated/doc for a list of codes.
	#]
			-->
	#] - {{done}} by {{user\|Hu12}} ] <sup><font color="#E3A857">]</font></sup><sub> <font color="#008000">]</font></sub> 18:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	After reviewing an entry, please post a comment on the requester's talk page because the requester may no longer be watching the page after such a lengthy period of time. ] may be useful. Thank you, ] (]) 02:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

			== Deletion discussions ==
	===]===
			{{XFD backlog\|right}}
	I imagine this is a fairly clear-cut 'no consensus' result, but it would be helpful for an uninvolved administrator to rubber-stamp this expired and de-listed RFC. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-size:0.75em">– ] <span style="display:inline-block;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1em">‹]›<br/>‹]›</span></span> 05:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
			=== ] ===
			{{initiated\|21:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)\|type=xfd}} ] ] 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

	===]===		=== ] ===
			{{initiated\|00:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)\|type=cfd}} <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	A deletion review focusing on copyright and fair use as it applies to Dungeons & Dragons.—] <small>]/]</small> 18:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

			=== Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading ===
			{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|2147483647}}

			== Other types of closing requests ==
			<!--
			Please place entries ordered by the date the discussion was initiated (oldest at top).

			Please ensure you add the {{initiated\|date here}} template when placing a request here.

			* PLEASE don't archive old discussions yourself! Let a bot do it. Archiving the done close requests triggers the bot to do other essential things. *
			-->

			===]===
			{{initiated\|25 September 2024}} Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

			=== ] ===
			{{initiated\|11:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)}} Experienced closer requested. ―] ] 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

			===]===
			{{initiated\|29 October 2024}} There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. ]] 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

			===]===
			{{initiated\|7 November 2024}} Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. ] (]) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

			* {{a note}} I'm happy to perform the merge if required, as have summarised other sections of this article already with consensus. I realise it's usually expected to perform splits or merges when closing discussions, but in this case it wouldn't be needed. ] (]) 20:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			===]===
			{{initiated\|11:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)}} Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. ] (] • ]) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

			=== Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading ===
			{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|2147483647}}

Latest revision as of 16:25, 7 January 2025

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Cleanup resources, Misplaced Pages:Categorizing redirects, Misplaced Pages:Copyrights, Misplaced Pages:Competence is required, Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, Misplaced Pages:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction. "WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Assume no clue.

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39

This page has archives. Sections older than 182 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

Shortcuts

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Misplaced Pages discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

Technical instructions for closers
Please append `{{Doing}}` to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with `{{Close}}` or `{{Done}}` and an optional note, and consider sending a `{{Ping}}` to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with `{{Not done}}`. After addressing a request, please mark the `{{Initiated}}` template with `\|done=yes`. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with `{{Already done}}`, `{{Close}}`, `{{Done}}` `{{Not done}}`, and `{{Resolved}}`.

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

Administrative discussions

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus

(Initiated 25 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

(Initiated 23 days ago on 15 December 2024) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 91 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 459#RFC_Jerusalem_Post

(Initiated 71 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. 22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Genocide#RfC: History section, adding native American and Australian genocides as examples

(Initiated 62 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Team Seas#Re: the ocean pollution additions

(Initiated 53 days ago on 15 November 2024) Clear consensus that the proposed edit (and its amended version) violate WP:SYNTH. However, the owning editor is engaging in sealioning behavior, repeatedly arguing against the consensus and dismissing others' rationale as not fitting his personal definition of synthesis; and is persistently assuming bad-faith, including opening an ANI accusing another editor of WP:STONEWALLING. When finally challenged to give a direct quote from the source that supports the proposed edit, it was dismissed with "I provided the source, read it yourself" and then further accused that editor with bad-faith. The discussion is being driven into a ground by an editor who does not (nor wish to) understand consensus and can't be satisfied with any opposing argument supported by Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 45 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. Bogazicili (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Nikolai_Rimsky-Korsakov#RFC_on_Infobox_for_Nikolai_Rimsky-Korsakov

(Initiated 36 days ago on 2 December 2024) The last comment on this was on 24 December 2024 and Legobot has removed the RFC tag. An independent closer (preferably an admin) would be welcome. Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Done Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
V	Nov	Dec	Total
CfD	0	16	16
TfD	0	3	3
MfD	0	0	0
FfD	1	10	11
RfD	0	44	44
AfD	0	2	2

Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 November 27#File:The Musician (Erling Blöndal Bengtsson) by Ólöf Pálsdóttir.jpg

(Initiated 40 days ago on 27 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 20#Category:Belarusian saints

(Initiated 18 days ago on 20 December 2024) House Blaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 104 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump

(Initiated 83 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 70 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Survey

(Initiated 61 days ago on 7 November 2024) Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. CNC (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: I'm happy to perform the merge if required, as have summarised other sections of this article already with consensus. I realise it's usually expected to perform splits or merges when closing discussions, but in this case it wouldn't be needed. CNC (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

(Initiated 41 days ago on 27 November 2024) Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

Categories: