Wikipedia talk:Closure requests/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archiving

I've restored the archiving that was reverted. These are old reports that don't need to be closed; not all RfCs do. All seem to have been added by the same editor, User:Cunard, who doesn't edit much. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Many of the RfCs still need to be closed - there is a backlog that needs to be cleared, and archiving these reports won't help matters. StAnselm (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

They are from months ago. I couldn't find one that needed to be closed. Can you give an example? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 139#RfC on era style (BC/AD and BCE/CE), which I plan to close in the next couple of days. Talk:John Calvin#RfC: Including Anglican sainthood / Lutheran commemoration, which I can't close because I am involved. There are lots and lots of them, and that's what this page is for. StAnselm (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

No one has commented on the first for almost four months; if you want to close it, that's fine, but it's unlikely to make a difference. The second is more recent and is worth closing. The problem is that Cunard has cluttered the page up with some old RfCs that really don't need to be closed, so I removed everything before March. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Self-closure

I added on 16 June (diff) that most RfCs and RMs don't need formal closure, and that the usual thing (where consensus is clear) is for the initiators to perform the close themselves. Failing that, any editor can do so. This is the way it has been since I joined Wikipedia in 2004. It is only where consensus is unclear or the issue is a contentious one that a formal close is needed.

Obiwankenobi keeps reverting, objecting to the part about RfC or RM initiators performing the close themselves, so I'm bringing it here for discussion. He seems to prefer that that part not be mentioned. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm specifically referencing this section: Wikipedia:RFC#Ending_RfCs. The language SV adds makes it seem like the person who opened the RFC has some sort of special rights around closing it. In my experience, this is not the case. Clearly, an uninvolved editor can close it, and basically any discussion for that matter, after they've been open the requisite amount of time, but also an involved editor should be able to close an RFC (and I've seen it happen) even if the person who started the RFC isn't around or perhaps even if they don't agree. RFCs are anyway supposed to be neutrally formulated and framed by a group of people, so there isn't really a single "owner" of an RFC. Again, I have no issue with the RFC initiator doing the close themselves, I have issue with giving them some sort of special rights to do so, which I don't see described elsewhere in any other guidance or policy. I wouldn't want a case where X initiated, Y participated, and then X goes away and Y wants to close - do they have to ask permission? What does "failing that, any editor can do so" mean? Do you need to get consensus from the person that started the RFC? This doesn't exist for any other type of discussion - a discussion can be closed once the time has passed. Of course, if those participating disagree with the close, they can revert and debate and so on, but that's not what we're addressing here. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Having read the diff I have to agree with OWK. The changed wording does seem to incur some kind of special status on the person that opened an RFC, which shouldn't be the case. — Scott • talk 09:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Concur, 'Anyone involved' is enough. Dont need more instruction creep. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Move requests, a standard backlog

Seeing four move requests here at the moment, I feel they should not be permitted to be posted here. There is almost always a backlog at WP:RM, and there rarely is a reason for particular move requests to jump the queue. Unless a legitimate reason can be provided for why a particular request needs to be addressed more quickly (e.g. it's related to an article on the Main Page or a very high-profile article), I don't believe these should be posted here. "It's been open for a month" [after relisting generally] or "It's been seven days" applies to a number of move requests. If one wants to make a general appeal to have the backlog there cleared, that's fine, but I think it's unfair to suggest requests are special. -- tariqabjotu 22:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. That same logic would likely apply to all XfD discussions for example. What is the general case language here? Sometimes, I've seen the RM backlog simply transcluded here for example. I'm not sure much harm is done by someone posting here, it's really sort of a squeaky-wheel-getting-grease sort of thing - but we should continue to encourage people to close discussions themselves if the solution is clear. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

FWIW I posted some because they had been open for a month plus, and we're fairly complex. Hot Stop talk-contribs 01:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Should we add some guidance about non-admin closures?

It seems to me that this noticeboard can be subject to some confusion, in that although it's an "administrators' noticeboard", it states that there can also be non-admin closures, and furthermore, it contains a paragraph summarizing the consensus that non-admin closures should not be overturned simply because it wasn't an admin, but says nothing more about non-admin closures. Leaving it only at that, it seems to me that it could be only a matter of time until (rather like the snow-close RfAs that come up from time to time) someone who has been editing here only a week or so decides, "Hey, any editor can close an RfC, so I'll close this one!", only to close a discussion that was exceptionally complicated and contentious, precipitating an unnecessary drama. (For that matter, even a more experienced editor should evaluate consensus in complicated cases in the same way that we expect someone who has passed an RfA to do.) There's nothing in the current wording that addresses these possible pitfalls.

I made an edit-and-a-half yesterday in an attempt to see if I could improve the language about that, in the spirit of WP:BRD: [1] and [2]. Another editor did the "R" of BRD: [3], which is fine, of course. So, here I am with the "D".

What I wrote stated that non-admin closers should (i) "be familiar with policies and guidelines", and (ii) "be prepared to justify their reasoning to any editors who have questions about the closure." Unless I'm missing something, those things should be pretty much non-controversial. Of course, there may be better ways to say it. What do other editors think?

(I feel I need to say one thing more. I want to be fair to the editor who reverted me, but, if I'm going to be honest, I have to admit that some things that went on, on that editor's user talk page, were what initially made me think of making those edits here. I won't pretend otherwise: it was my reaction to seeing that editor decline to discuss their reasoning with editors from an RfC (in which I had no involvement) who expressed concerns. Although that was what made me think of the edits here, I did not intend those edits as implying a personal criticism of the editor who reverted me, or of anyone else. OK? I just want to make that clear.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• I've posted links to this discussion at WP:AN and WT:RFC. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

There are processes in place for reviewing any closures, by anyone. I don't think we need special language to say that non-admin closers should be familiar with policies and guidelines - that goes without saying. And I've seen several mop-holders that refuse to discuss their closes in a civil fashion. So, I'm not sure what purpose this language would serve here, and in any case such language should not be targeted only at non-admins.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I think there are a few notes about NACs that might be appropriate, mostly for those listing matters needing closes: 1) let all submitters know that even though this is an admin noticeboard, that NACs are common, and that they are as valid as an admin closure. 2) only matters that need specific administrator permissions should specifically request an admin instead of an uninvolved editor. 3) I would also support a note to NACs that closures often require significant follow-up, and that by undertaking a closure, you are taking on a responsibility to answer questions, usually on your user talk page, from participants about the particulars of your closure, and how to go about starting discussions for changing policies and guidelines on which the closure was based. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 07:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you; those are helpful comments. To Obi-Wan, as I said, I see the purpose primarily as being helpful to inexperienced editors. You are factually correct that admins as well as non-admins sometimes act in non-admin-like fashion, and that these things ought to go without saying. But as you can see at Wikipedia:Not now and Wikipedia:Adminship is not for new users, it's become more common than anyone would like that newbies apply for RfA without a clue about what they are applying for, including a lack of familiarity with policies and guidelines. I think it's just a matter of time before someone like that sees this relatively new board and thinks it's a great way to get ready for their RfA. (And frankly, I think there have been recent non-admin closures by experienced editors that are likely to precipitate drama.) Although we do have a closure review process, it's potentially costly in terms of community time and effort, so wouldn't it be worth it to have instructions that help avoid needing a review to begin with?

VanIsaac, I'm receptive to further guidance for those requesting here, but I think that's a separate discussion. This page already does say that non-admin closures are as valid as admin ones, although it doesn't try to quantify how common they are, and I'm not sure we should really try to do that. But I agree with you that a good approach would be a pointer to WP:NAC. And that is actually better than my previous language about policies and guidelines; we could just make sure that editors refer there. I also agree with you about indicating that making a closure entails a commitment to engage in talk, etc. I'd like to see something brief about that here. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I like the way Obi-Wan created a subsection for NACs. Based on the discussion here, so far, I suggest making the following additions, shown in green:

Non-admininstrator closes

Editors volunteering to close discussions here should refer toWikipedia:Non-admin closure. 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. Closers should understand that they may be asked to explain their closes to editors who have questions or concerns, and should be prepared to take the time to do so.

--Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I disagree with the link to the essay (we already give a link to the consensus guidance, lower down). I also strongly oppose the last sentence, given that I've seen several admins act like **** after a close, so if you'd like to make it a global message for all, go for it, but frankly it's not really needed here, and there's certainly no need to make it seem like its a non-admin problem.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The link to the essay could be worded differently (perhaps "should refer to" --> "can find guidance at"), and/or maybe changed to something else (perhaps WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOTAVOTE). Yes, I know that some admins, albeit a minority, can act badly, blah, blah, blah. That was me who pushed WP:CDARFC. But your opposition to the last sentence makes it sound like you think it's OK for an editor who closes an RfC badly to be uncooperative with editors who have questions. This is something where it amazes me that anyone would object to it. Someone who closes an RfC should be familiar with policies and guidelines, and should be willing to explain their reasoning. Many of the discussions listed here are contentious or have widespread implications. It's a serious responsibility. I haven't wanted to make any of this personal (and please understand that I don't mean you), but I have already seen repeated evidence of non-admin closes at this noticeboard where the closer did not understand policies and did not want to engage with editors with questions, and in time, these problems are only going to get worse. Perhaps I will decide to open an RfC with, in addition, a broader look at how the community views people who have not undergone an RfA setting themselves up as if they had passed one. I'm coming to the conclusion that a small number of editors are using this page to push the policy that editors who self-appoint should be able to make high impact decisions the same as editors who go through RfA. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• I've posted a link to this discussion at WT:RFA. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm concerned that this is both an overreaction and requires a complete overhaul of the consensus process - a pretty unwise course of action, in my opinion. The reason is simple: right now, beyond discussions that require specific permissions to execute, there exists no unambiguous distinction between formal and informal closes, and the types of discussions requiring one or the other. If we require all discussions to be formally closed, the entire consensus model grinds to a standstill as we wait for admins and formal closers to get around to reviewing every on-wiki discussion. If we leave it up to individual editors to decide whether a discussion needs to be formally closed, then we get a less functional version of what we have now - a board where formal closure requests get posted, but where discussions not needing admin oversight end up overwhelming the board or just don't ever get attended to. All we really need is what we've been working on here - a much more comprehensive prescription of the closure process, and fleshing out the WP:Closure review process. I honestly believe that better guidance for both closers and participants will greatly help for the minority of problematic closures that crop up. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 22:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I strongly support the wording that Tryptofish added to the article: "Because requests for closure made here are often those that are contentious, editors who volunteer to close discussions should be familiar with policies and guidelines, and should be prepared to justify their reasoning to any editors who have questions about the closure." I disagree with the comment above that familiarity with policies and guidelines "goes without saying". I recently saw a brand-new user try to mediate a content dispute, and they INSISTED on continuing to try to mediate it despite being rejected by the disputants, because they had read that "anyone can mediate a dispute". As was noted above, brand-new people who know nothing about Wikipedia often apply for adminship; I think it is entirely within the realm of possibility that somebody who doesn't know anything about our policies could try to close a discussion. So I think it should be clear that non-admin closures are not open to "anybody"; they are open to anybody who understands what they are doing. And I don't see any harm in reminding people that they must be open to discussing their decision. And I still believe, as I have stated elsewhere, that non-admin closures should be limited to situations where the result is pretty obvious. That is usually not the case with requests made here, and I would actually prefer to discourage non-admin closures of such discussions. --MelanieN (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I would be fine with "Because requests for closure made here are often those that are contentious, those who volunteer to close discussions should be familiar with policies and guidelines, and should be prepared to justify their reasoning to any editors who have questions about the closure." - but as a general message for ALL CLOSERS. Again, recent (and past) evidence has not shown any difference between bit-holders and non-bit-holders in this regard. Adminship is a set of powerful tools, not some marker that "Admins interpret policy better than editors". On your other points, I disagree. I would be fine with something saying, for non-admins, that only experienced editors well-versed in policy should attempt to close complicated discussions. Again, there are venues available for dealing with problematic closes, so I don't know what exact problem is being fixed here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

What about "Because requests for closure made here are often those that are most contentious, volunteer closers should be familiar with all general policies and guidelines, and every specific policy and guideline bearing on the given discussion. All closers should be prepared to fully discuss the closure rationale with any editors who have questions about the closure, and be willing to guide editors on where to and how to continue discussion on the underlying policies." I completely agree that this should be a general message for all closers, and that we do have good procedures and venues for dealing with problematic closes. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 05:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I added this language to a general section, please see the recent changes, feel free to revert or reword, but I would encourage such language to be framed for all closers, not just NACs.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

That's fine and I concur. And I certainly agree that the cautions should apply to all closers, whether or not they are admins. --MelanieN (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• All maintenance areas have always been a magnet for new, especially younger users. They do this work with the best of intentions but just don't realise that the required experence only comes with regular editing, seeing how things are done, reading up on the 1,000s of policies and guidelines we have, and heeding advice when it is offered by admins and experienced users. It's a problem that we constantly have to resolve, but I do not believe it has reached proportions that such contentious NAC can't be handled on case-by-case basis. Nevertheless, MelanieN makes some excellent observations and I welcome the suggestion made by Tryptofish. That said, we must avoid WP:Beans and allowing non admins to subtly pass themselves off themselves as having some special authority. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• I want to thank everyone who commented here recently, and I am very satisfied with where the language on the page seems to be now. I'd like to explain a couple of things. It's interesting that VanIsaac expressed concern about the recent changes creating new policy, at the same time that I was concerned about the wording before the recent changes having created new policy – like Rashomon, with different people looking at the same things and yet seeing them differently. Why is that? – especially since I think that VanIsaac's concern is actually one that I can agree with! Thinking about it carefully, it occurs to me that it isn't really about admins on one side and non-admins on the other. Instead, it's about experienced (or clueful) users on one side and inexperienced (or clueless) users on the other. Given what RfA involves, there's really no such thing as an administrator who has little or no experience editing (cluelessness, possible, but an exception to the rule). To use a recent example, please look at the close of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem, by three admins appointed by ArbCom to close it. There really is a standing practice of using those kinds of closures in such cases, where the issues are contentious and the reverberations high-impact. It would be a change from current consensus to say that a newly registered editor could come along and close a discussion like that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

BLPN better for improper bio RfC closures?

(Not a request for closure, FYI.)Noninvolved editors only, please:

I was writing up a WP:BLPN notice on this RfC on what I see as misuse of cherry picked primary sources in a BLP. Since I asked at the RfC it be closed as improper, someone said I should come here. This is something that should be clarified re: BLPs in this policy, by the way. (Note: also asked at BLPN talk since I have a feeling this noticeboard not too active; maybe should have gone there first.) Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 16:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

That 'someone' was me. I provided a link to the ANRFC so that you might actually post a request for closure. What are you asking for here -- that admins be more involved in this particular notice board? – S. Rich (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

As I told you on my talk page, I don't know in a BLP case, if BLPN should trump this closure. I'm looking for ninvolved editors advice. User:Carolmooredc 18:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

this board is to request closure. If you think the RFC should be closed early as disruptive that's what you'd use this board for. In this case, I see a content discussion, so no need to close early. If you want to notify other boards like blpn, or, etc that's fine. If the material in question is very controversial or defaming and currently the subject of dispute as to sourcing, I'd say remove it for now since its a BLP (I didn't look at the article, only the talk). Once the RFC has run for a while, if there is clear consensus one of you can close, if not feel free to post a neutral notice here to ask for closure. As an aside, I feel like people use RFCs an awful lot these days in cases where it's not necessarily needed, or is it just me?Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for opinion; it makes sense. I agree on RfCs, especially in BLP policy issues. Better to go to various content noticeboard where people interested in policy sometimes paying attention :-) Will give it another day to see how things develop and since weekends not great for good noticeboard responses. User:Carolmooredc 20:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggested move to Wikipedia:Requests for closure

I'm proposing that this page be moved to Wikipedia:Requests for closure. There are three main reasons:

1. This is not a noticeboard
2. This is not a subpage of AN
3. Closing of discussions has never been limited to administrators as is suggested by being at AN/RFC

Wikipedia:Requests for closure can still be transcluded at AN as it is currently if it's useful for administrators. Thoughts? -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with any move that shifts the process away from administrators closing difficult discussions. Yes, I know that there are good-faith non-admins who do good work, but I still have all of the concerns that I raised above, in #Should we add some guidance about non-admin closures?. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you elucidate why you're uncomfortable with non-admins? -Nathan Johnson (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

1. I think that this is a noticeboard, specifically for discussions needing closure.
2. Well, factually, it is a subpage of AN - ie, /Requests for closure; whether it should be is just the question you've posed. You've assumed your conclusion and used it as an argument.
3. Certainly, closing discussions is not limited to administrators, but no other administrators' noticeboard is, either.

My thoughts are that it's just fine where it is.VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 21:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts are that it's not just fine where it is. It gives the impression that admin have some special powers in closing discussions. This has never been the case. In my view, having this forum here gives credence to that idea, which is harmful to the project. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Keeping this at AN should not be taken as a request that only admins should close these. Things wind up in this list usually because they are difficult to close and there is no general enthusiasm for closing them. Regular editors who may want to take on these worthwhile tasks should consider watchlisting WP:AN. Removing these closure requests from AN might cause them to be seen less often, since not everyone would think to watchlist WP:Requests for closure. EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with what EdJohnston said. Nathan Johnson, I'll try to answer your questions to me here. I am not uncomfortable with all non-admins – after all, I am one myself. And I was the main person behind WP:CDARFC, so I'm certainly not someone who feels that admins should somehow be considered to have a special stature. But, that said, I feel that the determination of consensus in a difficult discussion – and this board tends to have a high proportion of difficult discussions – is a task requiring a high level of skill and familiarity with policies and guidelines, and a temperament that is compatible with being challenged by editors who end up disagreeing with the close. That's not for everyone. Decide a contentious discussion badly, and all kinds of problems will ensue. Sure, we have review procedures, but it's much better to get it right the first time. As I explained in detail in the discussion thread above, when we leave it open to all willing editors, we might assume that only clueful users will step forward, but (absent some kind of qualifying criteria, and I don't want to have to figure out how to articulate what those would be) anybody might show up. Maybe a brand new account, who knows nothing about how discussions here work, but who sees it as an opportunity to be a big shot. It's a recipe for trouble. I think that there is a project-wide consensus that non-admin closes should not be overturned simply because they are non-admin, but I also think that there is a project-wide perception that, when an uninvolved user is asked to close a difficult discussion, that person making the close needs to be someone who is widely trusted by the community. In recent years, RfA has become so rigorous that being an admin has become shorthand for being widely trusted. I honestly think that if we want to move in the direction of giving non-admins a greater role in determining consensus in difficult discussions, then that would actually require a much broader discussion to determine if it really has wide consensus, because I don't believe that it does. As Ed indicated, most admins don't want to say that non-admins are unwelcome. The previous discussion was simply about overturning non-admin decisions; it was a discussion amongst a fairly small group of editors, and it only examined overturning once a decision was made. There really has not been a serious assessment of how the editing community feels about when non-admins should or should not close those discussions in which emotions run high. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

@EdJohnston, this is a subpage of AN. Watchlisting AN does not add AN/RFC to your watchlist. I am not proposing to stop transcluding this page from AN.

@Tryptofish, RfA is simply about staying under the radar for a year and racking up >10000 edits. Throw in a modest amount of content work, and you're guaranteed to pass. It has nothing to do with "widely trusted". -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Nathan, you may be correct that an update of WP:AN/RFC does not pop on the watchlist of someone who is only watching WP:AN. Nonetheless, if I'm here looking at AN for other reasons I'll probably go and look at the transcluded items that want closures. Also, WP:AN has over 3,700 watchers while WP:AN/RFC has only 152. EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

EdJohnston, none of that makes any sense. Do you know that? I am correct that an edit to this page does not show up in the watchlist of someone who only has AN watchlisted. You know why? I've tested it. You know, due diligence before opening my mouth. Something that an admin should do instead of simply saying "you may be correct..." and then blather about something not related. If the page were moved, it could still be transcluded at AN. Do you have any logical reason that you oppose moving the page? Or can I assume you aren't intelligent enough to understand the basics of how Wikipedia work? -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

And, Nathan, that is your opinion of RfA. It might not be shared by the community. But making this open to all editors does not even require staying under the radar and racking up some edits that include content. The fact that it's possible for an admin to make a flawed close does not mean that non-admins can be counted upon, as a matter of broad policy, to do better. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Tryptofish, this page is already open to all editors. Admins have never had any special powers in closing discussions. Your trust in admins and RfA is misplaced, but there's really nothing I can do about that. See above how admin EdJohnston doesn't know how the watchlist and transclussion work. Do you trust them to close discussions if they can't seem to understand the technical basics of Wikipedia? -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, Nathan, I suspect that someone who questions Ed's intelligence would probably not have the full trust of the editing community. Anyway, it seems to me that the move proposal is not getting consensus, and if you would like to initiate a broader discussion of the issue of closing discussions, by all means do so. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive of closure reviews

I have created Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive of closure reviews, a list of closure reviews listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. This will give editors interested in posting closure reviews the opportunity to review past closure reviews. I used the table format from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive because I think it provides a better presentation of the material than only a list of links.

Please feel free to add any closure reviews I may have missed or correct any factual mistakes I might have made in the creating the archive. Cunard (talk) 10:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Cunard. I think this will be a useful point of reference for a variety of discussions. Any objections if I let others know about this on the village pump or on The Signpost? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 16:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to post this on the village pump or the Signpost. I hope it'll be a very useful reference. I put the archive under WP:ANRFC at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive of closure reviews, but am unsure if there is a better location. Feel free to move the page if there's a better location.

Also, as I noted on User talk:Armbrust, maybe this page could be added to the ANRFC archive box, but I haven't figured out how because of the archive box's formatting. If adding it to the archive box isn't possible, perhaps it could be added somewhere else on the ANRFC page? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive per Armbrust's suggestion. Cunard (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Assistance on closure

Hi. I just closed the RFC on whether English should be considered the Jews' lingua franca: Talk:Jews/infobox#English as the predominant language. The discussion on the topic covered multiple sub-sections but I only formally closed the RFC section of the debate. Should I have archived/closed the entire discussion? Also, what, if anything, should I post on this project page to indicate closure? Finally, this was my first time to close a discussion, was my rationale OK.? Thanks. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi FiachraByrne.

When you close a discussion, please note the closure on the project page, by saying something like "closed" or "done".

Regarding archiving/closing the entire discussion: If you read the entire discussion including the other subsections to make your decision, I recommend placing your close at the top and enclosing the entire discussion with archive templates.

If you just read the RfC subsection (or if your close is primarily applicable to that subsection), then I recommend following Armbrust (talk · contribs)'s multiple archive templates method at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 44#G4 and subsequent XfDs. If you follow this second method, I recommend making section links like [[#Link to subsection]]. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Section links. This ensures that when the discussion is archived, the section links will still work.

As I wrote in the section just above this one: "The eloquence and attention to detail in [your] first close is impressive and is reminiscent of some of ANRFC's very experienced closers." Your closure captures the opposing viewpoints very well and is a reasonable interpretation of the consensus.

A suggestion I have would be to consider implementing your close in the article, so that other editors don't need to interpret your close.

Further information in case any of your closes are contested: The RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 12#Review concluded that "The consensus was that closures should not be reverted solely because the closer was not an administrator" (quote from WP:ANRFC). If your closure is contested or reverted (which has happened to other closers in the past), I recommend explaining your decision to the contesting editor first. If you cannot come to an agreement, then a closure review can be requested at WP:AN so there are more eyes on the situation.

Thank you again for your excellent work!

Cunard (talk) 11:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the very kind words Cunard.

I've modified the closure to include the entire discussion following your comments above.

I can't implement the closure as it was an endorsement of the current status quo. The statement that English was the Jewish lingua franca had been reverted on the 20 October [4].

Thank you also for excellent advice and explanations. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

If status quo is the consensus of a discussion, than it's effectively implemented. There is no need to make any edits. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, FiachraByrne (talk · contribs) and Armbrust (talk · contribs). I apologize for the oversight.

FiachraByrne, thank you for your detailed close here of Talk:Sex Pistols#British/English and for implementing the close by reverting to the status quo. Cunard (talk) 12:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again Cunard. I'm not familiar enough with the protocols of this board to put my spake in above. I do enjoy closing though and I think that a lot of discussions, generally, would benefit from formal closures. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Number of discussions being added

Cunard seems to be searching for discussions that have not been closed formally and adds them here for closure, even when they're old, or have petered out or become moot. When I try to archive them, I'm reverted by Cunard or Armbrust.

The problem with leaving them here is that the ones that do need closure get overlooked because of the undergrowth. And this page being transcluded onto AN makes that page look a mess too.

My own position is that the people involved in a discussion should be the ones to request closure, because they know best whether outside closure is needed. Often it isn't. Any other thoughts on this would be appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there are some discussions I've closed from Cunard where I did not think it was strictly necessary, but that isn't always the case-- some discussions that Cunard has posted have helped folks figure things out and effectively move on. Sometimes, editors may not want to step forward to request a close because it might seem like they want to quickly end it in their favor. Other times, people simply forget to request because newer issues that have arisen while older ones have gotten archived. That said, Cunard and I had a discussion related to this concern here where I expressed that I think editors on the page were fully able to read consensus on their own, and reiterated what is at the top of WP:ANRFC: That most discussions do not need a formal close. I think while formal closes can be helpful, I am concerned about the perennial backlog at WP:ANRFC for editors actually waiting on closes, which sometimes reaches an additional two weeks or more (in addition to the 30 days of discussions). (Speaking of which, it seems there are only a handful of editors actually closing discussions which makes this tougher to deal with.) I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 21:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I helped write the top text, and I agree with I, JethroBT that the existing consensus is that this page is only for those discussions where there is a need for an outside person to visit the discussion and determine the consensus. A way to think about it is to ask oneself whether, given the small number of users who are available to provide closes, the discussion is important enough or controversial enough that it is necessary to ask for one such user to take the time to make a close – and if not, please don't list it. It does seem to me that the list tends to be overly long, and to appear overly backlogged. My hope is that editors can agree to this consensus (or ask that the consensus be re-evaluated). That said, once someone lists a discussion in good faith, it's probably best not to de-list it without prior agreement with the listing user to do so. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Not archiving means they will sit here for a long time, that's the problem, and he is adding multiple discussions at once. For example, two of the discussions I archived today (first, opened 18 October, second opened 3 November) were about proposed topic bans on AN/I. The first failed to gain consensus, and the second had been decided (user blocked and clear support for the topic ban). Both had been archived by the AN/I bot. Cunard (who did not part in either discussion) asked here for an admin to close them. I judged them not needing closure and archived them here too. Armbrust reverted.

Volunteer time is precious, especially for something like this, because closing discussions is a thankless task that can be surprisingly time-consuming. I really think we need to keep this page clear of discussions that the people involved in them are handling by themselves. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Previous discussion about this here, by the way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree about volunteer time being a finite commodity, and one that should be respected. I also think that previous discussion to which you linked is key. I hope that User:Cunard will comment here, so that we can see whether or not we have consensus about how many discussions to list. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive818#User:ProudIrishAspie and Infobox flags

Link to request for closure. This was one of the discussions deleted by SlimVirgin. Her explanation: "[it] had been decided (user blocked and clear support for the topic ban)". Based on the closure request, JodyB (talk · contribs) closed the discussion as:

ProudIrishAspie is topic banned indefinitely from adding flags, icons, rank insignia, and other images to military biography infoboxes per this discussion from the community. No block is assigned at this time but could arise if the user violates the community decision. JodyB _talk 01:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

JodyB's close was necessary per the policy Wikipedia:Banning policy#Community bans and restrictions (bolding added for emphasis):

Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members. If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator notifies the subject accordingly. The discussion is then closed, and the sanction should be logged at the appropriate venue, usually Wikipedia:Editing restrictions or Wikipedia:List of banned users.

The sanction does not take effect until the discussion is closed, the sanction logged, and the subject notified. Without these steps, the subject will not have received due process. The ban will not be in effect despite the consensus for enacting it.

See for example Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive819#Loomspicker again (discussion initiated 17 October 2013, closure requested at ANRFC by me 28 October 2013, closure requested by another editor 30 October 2013 at AN, closed 14 November 2013).

Despite the resounding consensus for a topic ban, the subject contested the topic ban, writing "when making your close, did you notice that all 6 users that supported a topic ban were already in a dispute with me on another page elsewhere related to that topic area". The topic ban closure was contested at AN, where it was endorsed by an uninvolved admin:

No issue with the close. Appears to be a well-read version of policy, the provided evidence, and therefore consensus. Note to everyone: if you've pissed off 6 people in a specific topic area, so much so that they all drop by to provide valid evidence, you might want to re-think how you interact with people in that topic area

This is an example where even though the discussion's consensus was obvious, the involved editor, Loomspicker, disagreed.

Extrapolating this to "obvious RfCs", the involvement of an uninvolved editor is beneficial in formalizing the consensus. It takes very little time to close such an obvious discussions, which is why I include them in my list of closure requests. Furthermore, these "obvious RfCs" do not clutter ANRFC because based on the timestamps, they are usually closed very quickly.

I do not close these discussions because even closes of "obvious RfCs" can require clarification or be contested. I cannot provide timely responses to such requests.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817#Matthew Bryden

Link to topic ban subsection: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817#Proposed topic ban of MiddayExpress.

Link to closure request by involved editor: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817#Summary of proprosal to ban User:Middayexpress from editing Matthew Bryden.

Link to request for closure (discussion initiated 18 October 2013, closure request 28 October 2013).

SlimVirgin wrote "[it] failed to gain consensus". But as an uninvolved editor, I think it is reasonable to find a consensus for a topic ban based on the strength of the arguments and the level of support.

An involved editor requested closure. The discussion should be closed. It should not be ignored and dismissed because an admin did not get to it before the archive bot archived it.

See also the 5 December 2013 request for closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive257#Please close discussion WP:ANRFC#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817#Matthew Bryden.

How my ANRFC closure requests and the closures have improved the encyclopedia:

1. Talk:Kosovo#RfC: Serbian register vs Serbo-Croatian language on Kosovo? (closure request) The discussion was initiated 19 July 2013 and a closure request was posted 4 November 2013.

   The RfC initiator made an 22 October 2013 comment: "Well, its been a while. I count 7 support and 4 oppose, and those opposing are mostly just ... I myself see no truly valid argument for continuing on with this confusing state of affairs. I propose to proceed with the edit?" The uninvolved closer found based on the strength of the arguments that there was no consensus to proceed with the edit despite a narrow majority of editors supporting the proposed edit.

   Even three months after the RfC had started and 75 days after the last comment, the RfC initiator wanted the situation resolved but was left with no guidance as to whether he or she could proceed with the edit. An uninvolved closer's involvement helped determine that the proposed change lacked the level of support needed for restoration, possibly avoiding future edit wars about whether the proposed edit had consensus.

2. Talk:Clint Eastwood#Alison Eastwood quote and Talk:Clint Eastwood#8 children by 6 women (closure request) The first RfC was initiated 30 August 2013; the second RfC was initiated 26 October 2013 after the RfC initiator's proposed change failed to achieve consensus in the first RfC. The closure request was posted 25 November 2013.

   57 days separated the initiation of the first RfC and the second RfC, an indication (like the previous closure request) that editors who care enough to start an RfC sometimes repeatedly raise issues they have previously raised. See the RfC initiator's 25 October 2013 post (over a month after the RfC template had been removed). See also this reversion of the RfC initiator's deletion of the first RfC.

   A closure in this situation helped determine there was no support for the RfC initiator's view. The formal closures more concretely establish that a third RfC without new information that addressed the participants' concerns would be disruptive and could be speedy closed without expending more of the community's time repeatedly discussing the issue.

3. Talk:Conceptualization (information science)#RfC: Inclusion of a figure in the article Conceptualization (information science) (closure request) The discussion was initiated 5 August 2013 and a closure request was posted 4 November 2013.

   At first glance, the discussion appears to have a result of no consensus. But after a close review of the arguments, the closer found that there was a consensus to restore the image. Based on this closure, the image was restored 91 days after the RfC was initiated.

   Had this old discussion not been assessed by an uninvolved editor, the image would have been excluded from the article despite the consensus to include it.

4. Talk:Alishan Bairamian#RfC: Should publicly-available, but obscure, information be included if it compromises the subject's family's privacy? (closure request) The discussion was initiated 5 October 2013 and a closure request was posted 19 November 2013.

   The RfC tag was removed 4 November 2013 and no one requested a closure until I did 15 days later. The closer's assessment of the consensus resulted in the material being restored. Without this closure request and closure, the material would have remained excluded despite the consensus to include it. The participants' time offering arguments would have been wasted.

5. Talk:George Zimmerman#RfC: Should photographs be included in this article? (closure request) The discussion was initiated 3 October 2013 and a closure request was posted 3 October 2013.

   At first glance, the discussion appears to have no consensus to remove either of the images being discussed (the first an image still from a video and the second a mugshot). An uninvolved closer determined that based on the strengths of the argument the image still should be retained (though not in the infobox) and the mugshot should be removed per the policy WP:MUG. After the close, the image still was restored in the article body. After another editor moved the image to the infobox, the first editor moved that image back to the article body, noting the RfC close. The uninvolved closer helped prevent edit warring and brought clarity to a lengthy discussion.

When I list discussions for closure, I cannot tell which ones will result in edits to articles or edit war preventions. Therefore, I err on the side of listing a discussion for closure if I think there is a reasonable chance of a close's being helpful.

April 2013 removal of unclosed discussions:

1. SlimVirgin removed a large number of unclosed discussions.
2. StAnselm (talk · contribs) reverted with the edit summary "restored archived discussions, many of which still need to be closed".
3. SlimVirgin reverted with the edit summary "restored archiving; these are old and cluttering the page".
4. StAnselm reverted again, writing: "No - there is still work to do. Please get consensus on the talk page first."
5. SlimVirgin reverted again with the edit summary "rv please see talk".

The discussion is above.

I was away from Wikipedia for over a month. When I returned, I found my hours of work deleted. The deletion of the requests for closure despite the lack of consensus to remove them prompted me to avoid making closure requests for five months. I did not want to spend time finding discussions only to find them all deleted when I returned weeks later.

December 2013 removal of unclosed discussions:

1. SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) removed requests for closure with the edit summary "archiving discussions that are old or don't need formal closure".
2. Armbrust (talk · contribs) reverted with the edit summary "Unarchive, IMO they need closure..."
3. SlimVirgin reverted again.
4. Armbrust re-reverted.

Thank you, Armbrust, for restoring those discussions because they needed closures.

Closing discussions is a "thankless task":

This might be true for some but it is not true for all closers. Prolific closer I JethroBT (talk · contribs) wrote (bolding added for emphasis):

I actually take out a pen and paper and write down notes and do at least two reads of an RfC (unless it's a case of WP:SNOW). On the first pass, I write out summaries of people's arguments, and the second pass, I check them in relation to other arguments and also note policies that are relevant or have been explicitly discussed. I actually find the whole process kind of fun, in part because I like the challenge of having to help resolve legitimate, good-faith conflicts where matters might seem unresolvable. To be fair, sometimes situations cannot be resolved (which is why I'm sure glad no consensus is a valid close). But it does require a bit of time for reading, writing, and thinking. Some have said that closing RfCs is a thankless task, but I actually get thanked much more often than I expected for making closes, even the easy ones. But I get it with the "issues I care about are hard to summarize" in a balanced way. I tend to know when that's the case for me and I either avoid or participate in those discussions instead. Anyway, thanks for dropping a note my way, I really appreciate it. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 15:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Finding and listing discussions for closure could also be considered a "thankless task". But I do not consider the task thankless. I feel it is a positive contribution to the encyclopedia by listing forgotten discussions that would benefit from closure. But the credit for resolving the disputes belongs singularly to the RfC closers who sift through discussions to determine the consensus or lack of it.

Reasons for closure requests:

As I wrote here:

A close could help serve as a baseline for future discussions by explicitly recording the current consensus.

I have observed some topics being repeatedly raised. An uninvolved editor's close would firmly establish that the consensus is for or against a proposal, more so than a lengthy unclosed discussion.

I view RfCs like XfDs, which are always closed. An editor considered the subject important enough to start a formal discussion, so the discussion deserves a formal close to give its result finality.

Final comments:

I acknowledge that the wait time for some discussions at ANRFC is not optimal. But those are frequently the discussions that would have had long waits owing to their complexity or contentiousness. The key to this is to engage more community members to participate in ANRFC. In the past few months, I've noticed a growing number of editors joining the ANRFC closer team as new regulars: ТимофейЛееСуда (talk · contribs), Mdann52 (talk · contribs), Callanecc (talk · contribs), and Keithbob (talk · contribs).

Just today, FiachraByrne (talk · contribs) made his or her first RfC closure at Talk:Jews/infobox#Request for comment; see #Assistance on closure. The eloquence and attention to detail in FiachraByrne's first close is impressive and is reminiscent of some of ANRFC's very experienced closers.

As I wrote here, I agree that discussions should not be indiscriminately listed at ANRFC. I carefully consider each close request I list at the board. If I make a mistake as I did here, I am willing to withdraw my closure request.

I apologize for the length of this post. I am explaining my rationale for listing discussions for closure in detail because I cannot engage in timely extended discussion. I urge editors to read closely the "How my ANRFC closure requests and the closures have improved the encyclopedia" section.

If the consensus is that my closure requests are disrupting ANRFC, then I will obey the consensus and no longer find expired RfCs to list.

Thank you to all ANRFC closers. You have significantly improved the encyclopedia by resolving many disputes, some of which may have seemed at first intractable but were untangled by your wisdom, tact, and eloquence.
Cunard (talk) 11:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of Cunard's reply

Cunard, I frankly find your comments here to be WP:TLDR, and it doesn't help your argument, but I do see that you said: "If the consensus is that my closure requests are disrupting ANRFC, then I will obey the consensus and no longer find expired RfCs to list." Thank you. Based on the comments leading up to your reply, I think that might indeed be the consensus. Obviously, you are free to list anything in which you, yourself, have been taking part in the discussion and you are convinced that someone impartial is needed to determine consensus. But let me suggest to you that you please take a vacation for a while from looking around for discussions that you otherwise did not take part in, for listing here. Those users who did take part in those discussions can of course come here themselves if they see fit to do so. (And we all agree with you that those Wikipedians who do step up to make closures are doing a very helpful service, which is why we should respect their finite time.) OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I think Cunard has been providing a valuable service to editors who are new to the RfC and ANRFC process, by posting relevant discussions for closure. Maybe as a compromise, Cunard could go to the talk pages of the RfC creators and ask them if they would like their discussion listed at ANRFC and only list discussions where the creator endorses the action. I have closed several of these RfCs as a non-admin, and editors seem grateful for a neutral summary close as it gives them a focused conclusion that they can use as a foundation for further activities. Regarding the ANI thread on Matthew Bryden which Cunard listed at ANRFC on Oct 28th and which is cited above, I don't think the 'no consesnus' conclusion is perfectly clear, and I asked repeatedly during that ANI discussion for an Admin to come and close the discussion. I, and I believe other involved parties, would still very much like closure on that discussion and I am grateful to Cunard for having listed it at ANRFC. I hope someone will close it soon. From my end I will try to make as many non-admin closures as I can in the next week to help with the back log including the Main Page Redesign RfC which was listed at ANRF by Cunard in October. I hope this is helpful. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with the number of discussions added, however It would be good if @Cunard: could check if some of these requests are not on the page already. I also want to ask @SlimVirgin:, that if only that sections were deemed as not needing closure, than why didn't she close any of the other ones (which she didn't remove from the page)? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I also have no issue with the number of discussions being added, User:Cunard's work is most definitely helping the project, and I thank him for that. Also, User:Armbrust is doing a fantastic job of archiving closed discussions, and I thank him for that. I've gotten involved in helping out with simple closures that do not require administrators because I've listed a few items that needed closure that I cannot close. I feel like if I am asking for someone to help close things I've worked on, its only fair for me to also try to help others out. -- ТимофейЛееСуда 00:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'm always quite happy to change my mind when I'm shown to have made a mistake. It's pretty clear to me that the most recent comments disprove what I said above about the consensus here, so I take that back. That said, I think that Keithbob has a very good idea: that Cunard ask at the discussion before coming here, and only list here if editors at the discussion (I don't even care whether it's the editor who started the discussion, or any editor who participated in it) indicate that doing so would be helpful. It does occur to me that, sometimes, editors are not aware that they can request an outside close, or are under the incorrect impression that a closer will show up automatically. So, given that Cunard is interested in this, if he could provide that advice at the locations of the discussions, and then list here only if there is feedback that he should do so, then I see that as a win-win. Does that work? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't asking to change your mind, I was just showing my support for Cunard as I think he does great work. I'm biased, so don't put too much weight on my opinion. I do agree that situation could potentially be good practice, but I think that its rather unfair to place such sanctions on only one person. If we decide to change something like this, I think that ANRFC should be changed to state that either a participant in a discussion can request, or an uninvolved editor can request only if it has already been requested for a closure on the RFC itself. Maybe that's not the best wording, but I hope you get the gist. I still think there is plenty of work that could be done, like Cunard could post on the talk page a reminder to the editor who opened the RFC that they can post a request for closure here. But, I'm not familiar enough with current processes to know the best solution. Just my 2 cents, I guess. :) -- ТимофейЛееСуда 01:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

No worries! I'm happy to change my mind even if nobody asks me. This page already carries the instructions: "Please note that most discussions do not need formal closure. Where consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion, provided the discussion has been open long enough for a consensus to form." So, as I see it, this is just a way of pointing Cunard to how to comply with that existing expectation. I suppose that if, in the future, we get more editors who list lots of discussions and it becomes contentious again, then we might want to generalize it. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Tryptofish, for your flexibility and helpfulness. That sounds good. In the meantime, we can encourage User:Cunard to check first with RfC participants but since there is no guideline on this I don't think we can require him to stick to any particular procedure. However, I agree, it would be helpful to all concerned if Cunard checked with a participant, or a potential closer as I did here [5] with Main Page redesign. In that case it turned out to be a real time saver for me as the rather long discussion does not need closing for various reasons cited by the creator.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, too, Keithbob, and that sounds very good to me. I think it's reasonable that this be a "request" rather than a "requirement" to Cunard, but with the understanding that a failure to abide by the request is likely to result in further discussion. Cunard, do you agree with this? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Although Keithbob means well with his proposal, I do not think it is a good idea. The discussion Keithbob cites (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 9#Talk:Main Page#Main page redesign) was an "open-ended discussion" (in the words of the RfC initiator). The close request was not acted upon for 58 days because a close of an open-ended discussion would be difficult owing to no concrete proposals being discussed. I listed the discussion only because it was listed at Template:Centralized discussion. In the future, I will cull such open-ended discussions from my close requests.

Many discussions are not listed at ANRFC because participants are no longer watching the discussion. Many reminders posted at discussions would not be noticed. For instance, I JethroBT's post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/franchise coverage RfC#Early close received only one reply in five days even though 22 editors participated in the discussion.

Another forgotten discussion was Talk:Conceptualization (information science)#RfC: Inclusion of a figure in the article Conceptualization (information science) (closure request). After the RfC was closed in favor of restoring the diagram, none of the participants—including the creator of the diagram—restored the diagram to the article despite all having edited afterwards. Three days after the RfC close, I restored the diagram.

Even if editors are no longer following a discussion, a close is useful in recording the newly established consensus (or lack of it) because an RfC's results can be considered in future discussions that might take place months or years after the RfC close. For example, at Talk:Peter Sellers/Archive 3#Infobox (closure request), the closer wrote (my bolding):

Closing as "yes it should". The discussion is basically between "I don't like it" on the con side, and "It helps and it's in line with common practise" on the pro. We don't accept the cons' argument when contrasted with the argument that the pros are making. Because the issue of infobox vs. identibox was brought up so late and not discussed by most people, I'm going to say "no consensus" on that. I would encourage participants to open a new discussion on it immediately; it wouldn't be much help to keep open that part of the discussion, because people are obviously discussing it in the context of "should we have anything of the sort".

Based on the close, the infobox was restored: "Per RfC admin closing ('yes it should')". A new discussion about infobox vs. identibox hasn't been started yet. But the discussion about having an infobox in the article has been ongoing since at least 25 July 2013, so it is likely that this will be discussed in the future. The RfC close helps participants frame their arguments based on the existing consensus.

I request closes in situations where some of the participants might oppose a close because it could go against their positions. The determination to close or not to close should belong to a neutral editor who has no stake in the outcome.

I believe I am a fair judge of which discussions' closures would benefit the encyclopedia. I make frequently editorial judgments to exclude listing some expired RfCs on ANRFC if they are not well-framed. But if the consensus is to bar uninvolved editors from requesting closure, that would be a strong indication that my closure requests are disrupting ANRFC, and I will abide by my promise above to no longer post expired RfCs.

Since my last posting of closure requests 10 days ago, all but two of the requests not posted by me have been fulfilled. ANRFC seems to be frequently backlogged, but close requests are usually fulfilled within a week while difficult discussions linger much longer. This is mainly an indication that ANRFC is an active noticeboard where closers do excellent work.

Armbrust, I apologize for occasionally placing duplicate closure requests on this page. Thank you for your work closing discussions, archiving acted upon closure requests, and removing my duplicate closure requests. Though I may make occasional mistakes in the future, I will try my best to avoid such oversights.

Cunard (talk) 12:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Cunard, it seems to me that if all the editors who had taken part in a discussion have so thoroughly lost interest in it that no one will notice a comment on the talk page, then the discussion has become so stale that it is a waste of a closer's time to bother to close it. To go around looking for such discussions seems to me to be an unproductive thing to do. If you come upon something like that, and leave a note there as has been suggested here, and no one responds, you can either make an edit consistent with your own interpretation of the discussion, without bothering with a formal closure (and someone can always revert you and reopen discussion if they disagree), or you can just ignore it.

It seems to me that if the discussants have not asked for a close, one can suggest one to them, and one of two things will happen:

1. They want a close, and posting it here is a good thing.
2. They either say "no" or do not respond at all, in which case posting it here without some very good reason is likely to be seen as disruptive.

--Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that just because editors have not commented on a discussion in some time means that they have lost interest. Sometimes, all of the information is on the table, and a close needs to be put in place. Other times, both sides have given their opinions in the discussion and in an honorable way have not taken the discussion too far where they must argue over petty details or fight for the last word. This is especially true in WP:NFCR where there are very very few closers. We always need a resolution in discussions as such. -- ТимофейЛееСуда 21:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand that. But what I am saying is that they have lost interest if they never respond to a comment in the discussion, asking about whether it should be closed. If they remain interested even after there are no further comments after a long time, then those who remain interested will see and respond to someone saying "would you like a formal close?". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I know that, at WP:FFD, there are very few contested nominations, but I'm not very familiar with WP:NFCR. Where you say there are very few closers, does that mean that there are very few closers for discussions where consensus is unclear because different editors have expressed different opinions? And, more directly related to the discussion here, is there a problem at WP:NFCR that discussants do not know to ask here for closes when they need to, such that someone uninvolved in those discussions needs to post here, on their behalf? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Conceptualization (information science)#RfC: Inclusion of a figure in the article Conceptualization (information science) (mentioned above) is but one example of a discussion where the participants did not return the discussion. An assessment of the consensus enabled the consensus to be implemented by restoring the figure. An uninvolved editor making an edit on the basis of an RfC's consensus is the same as an RfC close but lacks the formality of explicitly recording the consensus in a close. And an edit lacks the reasoning a closing rationale would provide. Therefore, formal closes are far preferable.

I agree with ТимофейЛееСуда's comment that WP:NFCR is another such example. I continue to believe my close requests are benefiting the encyclopedia, and the RfC closers who commented here agree. We will have to agree to disagree. Cunard (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

No, that will depend on what consensus emerges as other editors comment here. I'm not going to presume that I know what the consensus will end up being, but if, hypothetically, you end up saying that you disagree with whatever it is, then you could be looking at a ban from this noticeboard. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Your threats are unnecessary. As I noted above, I will no longer post expired RfCs at this noticeboard if the community believes it is disruptive. Cunard (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not a threat. My understanding of your lengthy reply today was that you said: "Although Keithbob means well with his proposal, I do not think it is a good idea." That statement is not congruent with "I will no longer post expired RfCs at this noticeboard if the community believes it is disruptive." --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The first quote is an expression of my opinion, which I am allowed to express. It does not contradict the second quote. Cunard (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Alright then, do you agree to follow Keithbob's suggestion (even if it does not match with your own opinion)? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see, why such a restriction should be put in place. Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I will not follow Keithbob's suggestion per Armbrust: Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy. If the community chooses to impose such a restriction on the noticeboard, then I will voluntarily no longer list expired RfCs at this board. Cunard (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think NOTBURO has anything to do with it. It isn't a restriction, yet. It was a suggestion, intended to be helpful, and it seemed to have consensus. At this time, we are only talking about one user, Cunard, for whom the issue comes up. Cunard has now stated that he rejects the suggestion. The question, then, is what the consensus at this noticeboard really is about such listings. The discussion began because someone felt that there were getting to be too many, and it appears that some users agree with that, and others disagree. If, hypothetically, the consensus is that we want to treat "Please note that most discussions do not need formal closure. Where consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion, provided the discussion has been open long enough for a consensus to form" as a serious expectation, then Cunard will have to decide whether "if the community believes it is disruptive" applies. And if he decides that it does not, then the community will have to decide whether we want to make it a restriction. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see, how it can be disruptive. The "consensus is clear"-discussions can be very easily closed. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Look, I don't close discussions here myself, so I don't have a dog in the fight of how many discussions are listed. I saw other users expressing concern, and, having been involved in drafting the language at the top of the page, I have been trying to help. Whether you, personally, see something or not, there are comments by other editors in this discussion, first expressing concern that Cunard has been listing discussions that did not need to be listed here, and subsequently, expressing support for the advice that Keithbob first proposed. There remain differences of opinion. Cunard has made it clear that he will comply with any formal restrictions, but will not voluntarily comply with the proposal from Keithbob so long as it remains an informal suggestion. At this point, it comes down to what editors active at this board want to do. The existing consensus is that "Please note that most discussions do not need formal closure. Where consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion, provided the discussion has been open long enough for a consensus to form." That's it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Look, I don't close discussions here myself – that indicates you have not had the level of experience that prolific, experienced closer Armbrust has had: The "consensus is clear"-discussions can be very easily closed. Armbrust, ТимофейЛееСуда, and I, who are all very involved with listing and closing discussions at ANRFC, do not believe that there are too many discussions. Other than yourself, the earlier participants who expressed concern with the number of discussions being listed have not returned. No one has been able to explain why listing the "consensus is clear" discussions is disruptive. This is because such discussions are closed very quickly and easily by editors who believe that their closures benefit the encyclopedia by recording the consensus.

The existing text states:

"Please note that most discussions do not need formal closure. Where consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion, provided the discussion has been open long enough for a consensus to form."

Your addition of "and consequently do not need to be listed here" after the first sentence has been reverted. Formal discussions such as AfDs, CfDs, and RfCs benefit from formal closure because the topics debated have been contentious or important enough to merit formal discussions. But any discussions can—and should—be listed here if an experienced editor believes a formal close would benefit the encyclopedia. Cunard (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Although you may not be aware of it, I am a very experienced user, with extensive experience in actually taking part in disputed discussions, so I am quite capable of taking part in this discussion. And, for any editor, it's the quality of the argument that matters in arriving at consensus, not some supposed status based on experience. A new user can make a very insightful contribution, and an experienced user can be mistaken. I would hope that anyone who closes disputed discussions would understand that. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

My statement was a comment about why you have been unable to provide any argument to refute experienced closer Armbrust's strong argument: There is no disruption in listing the "consensus is clear" discussions because The "consensus is clear"-discussions can be very easily closed. and editors who close these discussions believe they are improving the encyclopedia by recording the consensus.

As you acknowledge yourself, you do not close discussions here. Therefore, you have not had the "level of experience" (my wording from above) that Armbrust has had in closing discussions. This does not dispute that you are a "very experienced user, with extensive experience in actually taking part in disputed discussions". It is a misread and misrepresentation of my comments to interpret that as meaning I disagree with "it's the quality of the argument that matters in arriving at consensus, not some supposed status based on experience". Cunard (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not the issue here. I'm quite capable of understanding the concept that closing discussions where the consensus is clear is much more straightforward than closing those where the consensus is complicated to ascertain. There were editors who are experienced in closing discussions who started this discussion, about you, in the first place. They were expressing the opinion that your listings were creating a time burden for them. If they have now lost interest in this discussion, then so be it. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no time burden when in the words of Armbrust they can be very easily closed. Armbrust closes the majority of this category of discussions on this board. He sees no disruption and believes his closures are improving the encyclopedia by recording the consensus, so I see no reason to disagree with that opinion. Cunard (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Language in opening section: do all discussions need to be listed here?

I recently made this edit: [6]. And it was reverted: [7]. Those were the "B" and the "R" of WP:BRD, and this now is the "D". And I'm raising this discussion at least somewhat separately from the discussion above, because it goes to the basic consensus about what this notice board is or is not for.

The established language at the top of this page, which is not under dispute, says:

"Please note that most discussions do not need formal closure. Where consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion, provided the discussion has been open long enough for a consensus to form."

My suggestion, now reverted, added the following language to the first sentence:

"Please note that most discussions do not need formal closure, and consequently do not need to be listed here."

Let's look critically at the logic of this. On the one hand, it appears that everyone agrees that most discussions do not need a formal close. However, the revert means that there is an argument that, even discussions that do not need a formal closure do need, or at least might need, to be listed here. Even when a discussion does not need an uninvolved administrator or other editor to take the time to review the discussion, determine a consensus, and close it, nonetheless it can be helpful to list that discussion on this notice board.

Really??? To me, that sounds absurd! Is there actually an argument that it is helpful to list discussions on this notice board that do not need someone to come and close them? I look forward to hearing an answer! --Tryptofish (talk) 14:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Some editors might believe a discussion does not "need formal closure" because for example "the consensus is clear" or "the discussion is stale". The added language was reverted because it "does not seem to describe [the] accepted practice" of allowing closure requests by good faith editors who believes a close would benefit the encyclopedia even if "the consensus is clear" or "the discussion is stale". Cunard (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

That's an impressive demonstration of circular reasoning, but it still leads to an absurd conclusion. You describe a situation in which there has been a discussion, and the editors who took part in the discussion do not see a need to ask anyone to close it, perhaps because they all can see that the consensus is clear, perhaps because time has passed and no one really cares any more. The language at the top of this page already describes the "accepted practice" for such situations: "most discussions do not need formal closure". That is the accepted practice on the English Wikipedia. But you are adding a new twist: someone outside the discussion comes along and somehow or other decides that those editors who participated in the discussion were missing something, that this editor, through some sort of higher insight, sees the need to come to this notice board and ask an administrator or other editor to take the time and effort to go and issue a close nonetheless. Editors who are experienced closers began this discussion by complaining about you doing that. I'm not questioning that you do it in good faith, but there seems to be some question about good judgment. You are arguing that most discussions do not need formal closure, but anyone, for whatever reason, can decide that formal closure is required, even when editors who took part in the discussion see no need for it. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

And furthermore: the language I proposed was written to apply to situations where formal closure is not needed. If there is really a situation where an editor observed that a formal closure is needed, then the proposed language would not apply. Your revert implies, amazingly, that this notice board is for listing discussions that do not need to be formally closed. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The text "most discussions do not need formal closure" is a reminder that discussions should be carefully considered before being listed here. I follow this advice every time I make closure requests by excluding discussions that would not benefit from closure. The added language "and consequently do not need to be listed here" could be used to forbid closure requests where some editors believe a formal closure is not needed because "the consensus is clear" or "the discussion is stale", while another editor believes one is warranted. The accepted practice on this board since its inception has been to allow these requests from good faith editors. As I wrote above regarding the stale discussion Talk:Conceptualization (information science)#RfC: Inclusion of a figure in the article Conceptualization (information science) (closure request):

At first glance, the discussion appears to have a result of no consensus. But after a close review of the arguments, the closer found that there was a consensus to restore the image. Based on this closure, the image was restored 91 days after the RfC was initiated.

Had this old discussion not been assessed by an uninvolved editor, the image would have been excluded from the article despite the consensus to include it.

See my comments about the "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive818#User:ProudIrishAspie and Infobox flags" closure request for a "consensus is clear" discussion. It was removed by SlimVirgin just before she started this thread because she believed it "[didn't] need formal closure" even though a close would have benefited the encyclopedia.

There is a selection of other discussions at "How my ANRFC closure requests and the closures have improved the encyclopedia" where some editors might have believed a closure was not necessary. The added language is not accepted practice and would hinder good faith requests on this board. Cunard (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Here, you point to where you disagreed with SlimVirgin, and higher up, you pointed to how Armbrust is currently doing most of the actual closes here. Those things are factually accurate. I appreciate what Armbrust does, as we all do, and I want to make that very clear. I also, obviously, cannot claim to read anyone else's mind. But I wonder whether this board has evolved to where many potential closers of discussions, aside from Armbrust, have been driven away by the daunting quantity of listings, and by the resistance by everyone except me in this discussion to decreasing that quantity. I don't know, maybe, maybe not. In way, you are right that the language I proposed could be misused to work against good faith listings; conversely, I can argue that the existing language can be misused to defend good-faith but bad-judgment listings. Objectively, if the majority of discussions do not require a formal close, then the majority of discussions do not need to be listed here. You assume that you are right and SlimVirgin was incorrect, but I see two sides to that argument. That said, if no one else besides me cares, then I have better things to do than to continue arguing about this. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the "ProudIrishAspie" closure request, it came out, that a closure was indeed useful. He was recently blocked for one month for violation the topic ban (the consensus of the discussion). Without a closure this couldn't been possible. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Too many discussions being added

Previous discussions about this: April 2013; September 2013; December 2013

The situation with Cunard adding old discussions continues. It seems to have reduced the functionality of the board and may be discouraging closers, which is a pity because article RfCs are one of the aspects of dispute resolution that work well.

Until the archiving today there were 40 requests for closure on the page, 24 of them added by Cunard. Several were old discussions where consensus was clear or discussion had petered out. As the page says: "Please note that most discussions do not need formal closure."

I've tried in the past to archive old discussions, but Armbrust has reverted. I've considered posting on AN/I or taking admin action, but it's one of those time-consuming things that I'd prefer to avoid. I'm therefore asking here again whether Cunard will agree to stop adding discussions that he hasn't taken part in, and whether Armbrust will allow old or moot discussions to be archived – or post here about whether they should be unarchived, rather than reverting.

Alternatively, Cunard could ask RfC participants whether they want uninvolved closure, and only request closure here if one of them says yes. I believe this was suggested before but I don't know what came of it. Cunard and Armbrust, what say you?

Pinging others who have taken part in previous discussions about this: StAnselm, I JethroBT, Tryptofish, Keithbob, ТимофейЛееСуда. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

My opinion about this is, that instead of complaining and archiving requests, which (you think) doesn't need closure, you should close some, which need. The "old discussions where consensus was clear or discussion had petered out" are easy to close, and don't constitute a problem. I mean from the 19 closure request Cunard posted today at 2:03 (UTC) 10 were closed in the next 11 hours. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I used to close discussions, but the board was becoming overwhelmed by the old discussions, and when I tried to archive I was reverted, so I gave up. It's unlikely that I'm the only person who feels that way.

If a discussion is prematurely archived and you really feel it does need closure, then of course it's okay to restore it, but the wholesale reversion of archiving means that Cunard is encouraged to keep adding old discussions, so the situation will just continue. Something has to give. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a compromise could be that we open a subpage of this page for old discussions that Cunard feels need to be closed, and if Armbrust (or anyone else) wants to close them, that's fine. That would mean the main page could be kept for discussions that are more recent or pressing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

IMO your approach to this page is wrong. Just because a discussion is old, it doesn't mean it doesn't need/it wouldn't benefit from a closure. From the 26 section from 14 are from Cunard. In two cases a participant of the discussion endorsed it

• Herostratus wrote on ANRFC on the request of Talk:Mark Steyn#human rights: "If it helps motivate anyone, I just cleared the second-oldest entry on this list, so maybe someone will help us out on this one?"
• Brianhe wrote on ANRFC on the request of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive822#Swdandap malfeasance: "I would also like this looked at and don't feel comfortable doing it myself since another editor thought I was not impartial. Don't think this should be just dropped like the first ANI was regarding same stuff from same person."

Two of the issues, where closure is requested (Talk:Li (surname)#RFC regarding multiple Chinese surnames transliterated to the same surname in English and Talk:Patriotic Nigras#RfC: Should the Patriotic Nigras Website link be included in the article?), have gone through multiple venue. Closure is certainly needed, and resurfacing the issue is just a mater of time. And in the case of Talk:LGBT rights under international law#Duplicated text on countries' obligations under international law, a closure was requests at involved editor. (Now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive256#Restoring_.28and_then_closing.29_a_deleted_RFC.) Moving these requests to a separate page would defeat the purpose of making, and I'm not supporting it. Also it's unclear, what old discussion means. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

For example, Cunard sometimes posts old AN/I proposals to block someone. These are discussions that petered out, and for whatever reason no admin wanted to block. Or events have overtaken the request (e.g. the editor has been blocked for some other reason). There's therefore no point in asking an admin to go back and look at it weeks after the fact. It's just make work.

You might be willing to do it sometimes, but almost no one else will, and when you stop doing it, what then? We will be left with a noticeboard that people have stopped using.

The board instructions say: "Formal closure by an uninvolved editor or administrator should be requested only where consensus remains unclear, the issue is a contentious one, or there are wiki-wide implications." I think we should ask Cunard to stick to that; or failing that, ask him to post on a subpage. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

There is only one such a "petered out" discussion on the page, and in this case an involved user endorses the closure request. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

For any examples I mention, you could pick out one or two and argue that they're okay. But the point remains that Cunard's main activity on Wikipedia is to look for old discussions and post them here. He posted 19 on 17 January. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

There are administrative back logs in many areas of WP (CCI, NPP etc.) I don't think the solution is to lower our standards but rather to bring in new editors to the project and bring existing editors to areas where they are needed (such as this one). I enjoy doing RfC closures and when I finish some of my projects (I'm acting DRN volunteer coordinator this month etc.) I will be back making more closures.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

And now 10 are already closed. As a compromise I could accept, that Cunard posts them in a collapsed box, and if someone involved endorses the request, than it can be moved out of it. What do you think? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

That could work. I would prefer if we say that the request has to be endorsed by someone who was involved in the discussion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, you already said that; I missed the word "involved" in your post. Yes, okay, that would work for me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why anyone wants to limit an editor who is acting in the best interest of editors at large. Before I gained as much experience as I have now, I did not even realize ANRFC existed, so I waited and waited for someone to close RFCs that I participated in. Just because no one asks for closure directly does not mean there isn't someone who wants it closed. Minutes after Cunard posted the list, I went in a closed four easy closures. His posting is not stopping me from wanting to participate in closures, its actually making it easier for me as a non-admin. -- ТимофейЛееСуда 19:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• I appreciate SlimVirgin's reopening of this discussion. A review of the earlier discussions will show that I'm quite sympathetic to what SlimVirgin has been saying, but that I decided to move on, because my suggestions did not seem to be getting consensus here. Seeing that at least one other user still has such concerns, I remain happy to discuss this further. About the suggestion of the collapsed box, it seems to me that, from earlier discussions, Cunard is unlikely to agree to it, as something that would apply to him but not to other editors who post to the board, unless the community imposes it as a formal restriction.
• I observed this edit: [8], by User:Scott Martin, which appears to me to indicate that at least one other user has also become dissatisfied with the situation. In theory, there could also be an unknown number of other editors who are dissatisfied, but we cannot assess who does not come here to close discussions due to the length of the list, because one cannot prove a negative. Obviously, there are some users here who are quite content with the status quo and only wish that more editors would join them, and other users who believe that we have a problem. The question is whether one group or the other represents community consensus.
• I tried to make this edit: [9], but Cunard reverted me per the discussion above. My head still spins that anyone could possibly object to that edit, but I was unable to make my argument stick. Perhaps the problem is that we have the same small group of self-selected editors taking part in these discussions, without input from a larger sample of the community. How about we hold an RfC, in order to get broader input about how the community wants this noticeboard to be used? One option would be to ask whether the language in my diff should or should not be added. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• An RfC is a good idea, though it would be hard to come up with a question. I wouldn't want to see too many rules introduced (such as requests for closure can only be made by those involved in a discussion). It's good that it's relatively relaxed. The problem is simply that one person is devoting himself to seeking out old discussions, and is being supported by one or two others, so he thinks it's okay to keep on doing it. If the one or two others would drop that support, the problem would be solved, so I do hope they consider that.

  I added some text to the blurb, so that sentence is now almost the same as the one you added: "Please note that most discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed on this page." [10] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• I am proud to say that I am a supporter of Cunard's actions. Not every editor knows how or where to request closure or the process of how RFCs and discussions work. I think Cunard's work assists those editors who don't know how to speak up. I am against your constant singling out of Cunard. Your obsession with this situation is unhealthy at best. You've opened multiple discussion about this, and have found supporters of your position and detractors from your position, but there is no community consensus that what Cunard is doing is breaking any policy or procedure. If you are unhappy with the amount of requests that are posted, then close a few. If you don't think a formal closure is needed, that is your opinion, and others may have a different opinion. It only takes a minute to close a RFC with an obvious consensus or where the discussion has ended to the point that everyone agrees on an edit. If you are upset that it clutters WP:ANRFC, then don't visit the page. If you are upset that it clutters WP:AN, then make a discussion about not including ANRFC on AN. If you want to start an RFC, please do, but you need to make it general, and you need to not single out Cunard. I would be more than happy to support a few of the ideas that you have brought up in previous discussions, but not in this manner of constantly discussion Cunard's actions. If you are unhappy with one person's actions and you have a dispute over that single editor's actions, then start a resolution process for you and that editor. You say: "If the one or two others would drop that support, the problem would be solved..." I find that disappointing and mildly disrespectful. If you were to drop your beef with Cunard and stop opening discussions, the problem would be equally solved. All four discussions about this matter are opened by you. If you stop opening them, there is nothing to discuss. If other editors disagree with Cunard's actions why are you the only one opening these discussions? You seem to be the only one that cares that much about this. The four discussions about Cunard over less than a calendar year becomes borderline WP:WIKIHOUNDING in my opinion as you are repeatedly confronting their work. I would recommend taking a deep breath and stepping back from this situation. If another editor complains, then let's start a proper generalized discussion. I will always support positive discussion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда 19:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
• I have reverted SlimVirgin's changes to the ANRFC board. The wording restricting closure requests (my bolding) "only where consensus remains unclear, the issue is a contentious one, or there are wiki-wide implications" is against the current practice of the board (and the practice of the board since its inception). Discussions where the consensus is clear are closed very quickly (usually within a day or several days). The discussions that remain on the board the longest (and cause the backlog) are typically those where the issues are more contentious.

  Similar wording by Tryptofish that I reverted was discussed at an earlier discussion. Rather than repeating the same arguments here, I will link to the earlier discussion: #Language in opening section: do all discussions need to be listed here?. Cunard (talk) 09:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• And, not surprisingly, I am really saddened that you did. So, the history is that I made an edit, and you reverted it, then SlimVirgin made an edit, and you reverted it. The earlier discussion to which you linked, between you and me, was just that, between you and me. Your characterization of "current practice" assumes the answer to the question. It is becoming clearer to me that we would be served by an RfC that would sample the views of the community, beyond just the views of a few of us here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• @Tryptofish: That comment was expressing my dissatisfaction with the combative and unpleasant way that Armbrust responded to my note of a closure. The note in question was my first visit here in many years, and that reception nearly put me off for good. I changed my mind on that after receiving a friendly note from Cunard. I was particularly unimpressed by his insinuation that Cunard's recommendations for how to close several interlinked discussions were in fact orders that I had not obeyed to the letter.

SlimVirgin, I can't agree with you that there's a problem here. In fact, I concur with Тимофей that you're badgering Cunard, and I think that you need to stop it. I continue to be impressed with Cunard's dedication and focus in tracking down and listing discussions in limbo. Lack of resolution to ongoing debates is a continuing issue on this project. If there are too many things listed here, it's because there are too many things left unfinished. It's a reflection of reality. As Cunard points out in his admirable response in the "September 2013" link above, not having a formal closure can also lead to misinterpretations (or deliberate ignorance) of consensus by persons in disputes, and not provide a recourse for editors attempting to enforce consensus. Having an accepted closure to point to will be immensely useful in many subsequent debates. We should encourage these. Making them is tough work, and I think that's what's putting editors off doing it, not seeing the number that need to be done.

— Scott • talk 21:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Scott. I understand better now. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you, Armbrust, for your cogent explanation at 17:15, 17 January 2014 of why closures are necessary. I noticed that no one has been able to rebut your arguments.

  Keithbob, I strongly agree with your comment that There are administrative back logs in many areas of WP (CCI, NPP etc.) I don't think the solution is to lower our standards but rather to bring in new editors to the project and bring existing editors to areas where they are needed (such as this one).

  ТимофейЛееСуда and Scott, thank you for your very eloquent comments which are very kind and supportive. I agree that SlimVirgin's repeated posts on this are coming across as "badgering" and "borderline WP:WIKIHOUNDING". I do not have anything else at the moment to add to the discussion other than to reiterate my comments in the previous discussions.

  Armbrust, Keithbob, ТимофейЛееСуда, Scott, jc37, I JethroBT, and many others, the work closers such as yourselves do at ANRFC is invaluable in resolving seemingly intractable disputes. I am grateful to you for the effort you all put into doing it well. Thank you again! Cunard (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Transclusion

Wikipedia can be a big place.

And so I don't mind that there may be many discussions being requested to be closed. In addition, sometimes, after reading through a discussion, I may decide to add my own comments and not close.

So I think this page is very helpful, if even for navigational purposes.

That said, I don't think a complete transclusion to the top of WP:AN is very useful OR helpful : )

Especially seemingly crowding the TOC.

Can we at least change the format somewhat? Maybe just place on AN a banner of some kind (with a single TOC entry) saying there are X number of discussion listed here for closure and would you please come help out, or some such?

Or if complete transclusion is still wanted, possibly switching from equal sign headers to semi colons?

Other ideas would be welcome : ) - jc37 21:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• +1. I do find that it gets in the way on WP:AN. — Scott • talk 21:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
• I would suggest it be transcluded at the top of AN under a collapse, and with fakeheaders to avoid crowding up the TOC. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• It would also be possible to either collapse or use fakeheaders to clean-up the TOC if one of these suggestions ends up being rejected. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't spend any time at WP:AN, but if there is issues with too much of ANRFC being listed on AN, then I would Support a translusion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда 21:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
• I like Salvidrim's idea of defaulting to a collapsed display. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
• Collapsing WP:ANRFC was previously discussed at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 10#The Rfc section in January 2013. An argument supporting complete, uncollapsed transclusion on WP:AN is that it brings more attention to the close requests. This is because AN is more well known and thus more highly trafficked than ANRFC. Compare 1,457 views for WP:ANRFC in December 2013 versus 117,240 views for WP:AN in December 2013.

  The increased exposure transclusion brings helps draw more closers who may have not seen the close requests otherwise. For example, an experienced CfD closer might be visiting WP:AN and after noticing a CfD listed at ANRFC might then participate in or close the discussion. Or a closer experienced with files might be visiting WP:AN and seeing the list of Wikipedia:Non-free content review discussions needing closure might decide to participate in or close a few.

  Listing the RfCs in WP:AN's table of contents is useful for WP:AN visitors in determining at a glance which discussions need closure. The list of discussions needing closure has more impact than merely a banner saying there are X number of discussions needing closure.

  Collapsing WP:ANRFC or removing it from WP:AN's table of contents could lead to less exposure for ANRFC and thus a higher backlog of unaddressed requests.

  I think the benefits of maintaining the transclusion and the table of contents as they are (drawing more attention to unclosed requests) outweigh the negatives (cluttered WP:AN table of contents). But if the community believes the negatives outweigh the positives, then I will accept the changes. Cunard (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

  I have notified the participants at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 10#The Rfc section of this discussion: Fram, NE Ent, Alanscottwalker, and Nathan Johnson. Cunard (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

  I would agree with your perspective (and do, with much of it), however, this is mostly to bring these unclosed discussions to the attention of someone who might close it. Closers tend to be experienced Wikipedians. If there was a single header at the top of the TOC concerning discussions needing closing, I think closers could find their way there just fine. That said, I really don't like the collapsing idea, for several of the reasons User:Cunard points out, among other things. - jc37 07:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

  Good arguments. I believe that the multiple headers at the top of the table of contents draw more attention to the closure requests at ANRFC. But I won't oppose a single header at the top of the TOC if that will improve the navigation experience for editors at AN.

  Is there a technical implementation that will preserve the headers at ANRFC but restrict AN to a single header? At ANRFC, the real headers are useful in (i) editing a closure request's section rather than the entire page (such as for marking a request as done), (ii) determining at a glance which discussions need closure, and (iii) linking to specific ANRFC closure requests (example). I do not know if the fakeheaders can accomplish this, but if they cannot, then I hope there is a different technical implementation (possibly somewhere at Help:Section?) that will accomplish this.

  Armbrust (talk · contribs) has worked very hard clerking this board and closing RfCs. If any change impedes his work in any way (such as a fakeheader forcing him to edit the whole page rather than just editing a closure request's section), then I will oppose it. Otherwise, I will be okay with the change. Cunard (talk) 09:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

  There are several options. We could do a limited transclusion for example. But I think I am leaning towards a magic solution as noted at Help:Section. I'll see if I can make it work : ) - jc37 16:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

  @Jc37: Or we use level 4 section headers for individual requests, and limit the TOC on AN to show only level 3 & level 2 headers (AFAIK level 4 headers rarely used there anyway). Very easy to accomplish, doesn't have any effect on section linking/editing. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Listed RfC Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 32#RfC: How should the statement of Jefferson's treatment of slaves be worded?

I have just reviewed Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 32#RfC: How should the statement of Jefferson's treatment of slaves be worded? and concluded that a formal close would be unnecessary and possibly confusing. The text that was under discussion has changed significantly since the RfC was started. Some of the issues under discussion appear to be unresolved but if people are concerned about that it would be easier to start a new discussion that takes the current text as a starting point. To cap it all, the RfC is in a talk-page archive.

I am new to ANRFC so I wanted to check a few things.

• Does the above conclusion make sense?
• What is the appropriate thing to do in this situation? Just remove the listing from ANRFC?
• I'm not wandering into a minefield am I? I note the above discussions about when RfCs should be listed.

Yaris678 (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I probably am not the best person to reply, so you might want to wait for more opinions. But the one thing I'm sure of is that, yes, this could be a minefield. I don't know (or don't care) what the merits of the RfC are, but I think you have as much right to draw the above conclusion as any other uninvolved editor has. So I would not second guess that, and anyone can always reopen discussion if they disagree with your conclusions. I think you can either go ahead and close the listing here with a statement of your view, and either archive it yourself and let someone else archive it – or, you can look to see who listed it here, and contact them on their user talk before closing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have put a {{not done}} on it. I'm open to suggestion on manually archiving, but I guess it will get archived by the bot eventually. Yaris678 (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. In one fish's opinion, you have just provided an excellent case study in support of the RfC proposal above. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• "a formal close would be unnecessary and possibly confusing" – because a formal close would be confusing given that the article text has changed significantly, I agree with the decision to leave the discussion unclosed. Cunard (talk) 11:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC about listing discussions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The instructions at the top of this noticeboard currently say, in part:

"Please note that most discussions do not need formal closure."

Should that sentence be revised to say:

"Please note that most discussions do not need formal closure, and consequently do not need to be listed here."?

--Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

There has been previous discussion of the question above, at #Language in opening section: do all discussions need to be listed here? and in part of #Too many discussions being added. This RfC is intended to seek the views of a broader cross-section of the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: Recent edits have changed "most" to "many", in the phrase adjacent to the proposed new language, based on parts of the discussion below. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've linked to here from WP:AN. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. I've explained my reasoning in the earlier discussions linked above, but it really comes down to this: it's downright ridiculous to say that discussions that do not need formal closure should nonetheless be listed here, asking someone else to take the time and effort to close something that they don't need to close. It's preposterous! I realize that there is an opposing view that editors can list something in good faith because they believe that a formal close would be helpful, and they don't want language that could be used against that, but that is not what this proposal would do. The new language does not apply to discussions that do need formal closure, only to those that do not. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support because...well, most discussions do not need formal closure. There's way too much clog on AN, increasing the chances that issues which do require attention may be overlooked. Miniapolis 00:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support - new language will increase clarity and (hopefully) reduce the number of unnecessary postings. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. What does the addition that is proposed going to do? How do we identify that discussions need formal closure? Not every discussion that has been opened is listed at ANRFC. If an editor, even one uninvolved with the discussion, feels there is a need for closure, then who is to say whether or not the discussion needs formal closure? This addition does nothing to address that situation. I understand the underlying concept that some editors feel that too many discussions are listed for closure, but this does nothing to help that idea. Unless and until there is some way of identifying discussions that require closure, I cannot support the addition of throw-away language that is absolutely meaningless. If a consensus of editors wanted to change this to read that a closure request must be from an involved editor or on behalf of a request of an involved editor, that could potentially solve the alleged issue. Alternatively, if the issue is that there are requests that a consensus of editors deem to not require a close, then an alternative could be that any administrator (since this is a part of WP:AN) decide that a discussion not require a formal closure, and that administrator could close the request (obviously including why they feel that way). These closed requests should only then be reverted by an uninvolved administrator unless there is specific community consensus that a formal closure is required. If there were text toward either one of those options, I would potentially be inclined to do something, but as it stands the proposed text does nothing for the claimed issue. -- ТимофейЛееСуда 03:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
• "Most", according to who? (points at NPOV : ) - How about something more like: "Please note that not every discussion needs formal closure, and consequently not every discussion needs to be listed here." Or something like that. - jc37
• * Support. I'd even support a longer explanation: If the editors at the RFC all agree on what the outcome was, then they shouldn't list it here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Tryptofish added the proposed words on 22 December, [11] and was reverted. I added similar words on 17 January, [12] and was also reverted. I think it's worth adding the extra words just to be clear. I'd also support making it even stronger, because RfC closures should usually be left to the participants. There are currently 49 discussions listed (including some multiple requests), most probably unnecessarily. It clogs up the board and also WP:AN, but if removed from WP:AN (as I saw someone suggest) this board will be ghettoized. So we really do need to cut down on the numbers. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support Since most discussions don't need closing It would then mean more inportant issues could be dealt with. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Anything which gets submitters to stop and think about whether a discussion actually needs an impartial closer would be good. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 15:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• The RfC initiator wrote:

  I realize that there is an opposing view that editors can list something in good faith because they believe that a formal close would be helpful, and they don't want language that could be used against that, but that is not what this proposal would do.

  This resolves my concern at #Language in opening section: do all discussions need to be listed here?. I ask the closer to note that the added wording should be interpreted in the context of the RfC initiator's comment. That is, good faith closure requests like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive818#User:ProudIrishAspie and Infobox flags (see my analysis) should not be unilaterally removed because such closures can be helpful.

  I think the wording is unnecessary per Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep, but because my concerns have been addressed, I will not actively object to it. Cunard (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

  The RfC initiator is happy to see you say that. Obviously, there are undertones to this discussion, based upon past disagreements about listings on this board. Neither I nor anyone else can guarantee that there won't be disagreements in the future. But I believe that the language proposed in this RfC will be helpful when those disagreements arise, because it sets an expectation that there needs to be a good faith reason to believe that a discussion needs a formal closure for it to be listed here, and that expectation should help guide the discussion when such disagreements arise. Editors may still ask in good faith whether the editor listing a discussion in good faith has exercised good judgment about the need for a formal closure, but I hope that we can move away from unilateral disagreements, and I hope that this RfC, by the time that it ends, will help ascertain how the community sees the purpose of this noticeboard. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support (invited by the bot). And don't support the changes described below. Any time you try to write categorical prescriptive wording, you are entering into a more complex realm of unintended consequences where review of all of the potential scenarios is required. North8000 (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support It seems self explanatory to me that if a discussion does not need formal closure, it does not need listing, but perhaps what is clear to me is muddy to others. It won't hurt to add that tiny bit of verbiage to clarify matters. The changes below are out of scope for this Rfc, IMO, as they suggest not a verbiage clarification but a complete change in how things are done. Such a change would require a separate Rfc with very broad input. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 01:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as per ТимофейЛееСуда and jc37. Text suggesting when discussions don't need to be clsoed and therefore should not be listed might be welcome. DES ^(talk) 23:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

  I don't think that's (opposing) really what jc37 said. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC

  Perhaps not, but in my view what he did say forms a good reason to oppose this specific proposal. DES ^(talk) 00:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

  Fair enough, thanks. I see he has commented more about it, below. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I read with interest what ТимофейЛееСуда and jc37 said just above, and it made me think of the following thought experiment. I'm not actually proposing it, but instead discussing it as a way of illustrating some ideas. Let's imagine two alternative proposals, each instead of the RfC here:

• A. Change:

"Please note that most discussions do not need formal closure."

to:

"Please note that most discussions do not need formal closure, but all discussions that have not already been closed should be listed here anyway."

Alternatively:

• B. Change:

"Please note that most discussions do not need formal closure."

to:

"All discussions that have not already been closed should be listed here."

I realize that "B" isn't exactly what jc37 said, and I'm open to accepting what jc37 did say as a friendly amendment. But, in contrast, it really becomes a separate RfC to discuss such a change as the language in "B". And going all the way to what I illustrated in "B" is really what editors who oppose the RfC proposal are arguing for. So, is it really most, as jc37 asks? I don't know whether it's 55%, or 90%, or somewhere in between, but I'm pretty comfortable with saying that it's greater than 50%. Does anyone really envision most RfCs that get listed per WP:RFC, plus everything at each of the deletion discussion venues, plus everything else that sometimes gets listed here, as being the kind of thing where we need a panel of three uninvolved admins to bring order? Of course not. How about as something that needs someone uninvolved to come to the rescue? Not really.

I keep seeing the argument that it's so easy to close most listed discussions that those who support the RfC proposal should just go and quickly close them, and be done with it, and stop complaining. It looks to me like those editors who are OK with that have come to populate this noticeboard, while those who feel like they have the right to decide what is or is not a good use of their time have attritioned away. I think that has distorted the discussions on this talk page, which is why I opened the RfC, to get more eyes here. More importantly, I think it's disadvantageous if a lot of potential closers ignore this noticeboard for that reason.

But if there were to be consensus to change this noticeboard to work as illustrated in "B", then we really ought to make such a change to what the top of the page says! If anyone wants to formally propose that, then I suggest that you do.

Now it seems to me that "B" is ultimately what ТимофейЛееСуда is arguing for, but the opposition to the actual RfC proposal that I have seen so far has always amounted to what I illustrated in "A". And I'm sorry, but that makes no sense at all. The entire point of this noticeboard is to list discussions that do need formal closure. Unless we are going to decide that all discussions, once started, should have formal closure – and that's a separate RfC – then we need to stop playing it both ways. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest, I'm not arguing for anything in this race, I do not have an opinion as the current processes and status do not affect me. I am willing to support anything that fosters a better system for everyone involved. My concern (as I discussed above) is your proposal while adding additional wording, still will not prevent the addition of unclosed discussions in the manner they are being added now. If you simply are trying to change the wording in the first step of hoping that it might affect change, let me know, and I'll support it. Personally, for what most proponents of this RFC are looking for, I don't think the simple addition of a phrase that restates basically what is already stated does not fix that situation. Like I said previously, I think for the issue that has been brought up 4 times in 10 months on this talk page, the only solution would be creating some way for identifying what should and should not be listed here. Sometimes it is not obvious whether a formal close is necessary. Other times you may think its obvious, but another editor does not. If any editor is listing a discussion here, I would hope that it is their opinion that that specific discussion requires formal closure. I may not be making myself clear, if not please let me know, I'll try to communicate in a different manner. -- ТимофейЛееСуда 22:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

That's OK. Maybe we need to figure out some explicit criteria, to list at the top of the noticeboard, by which to decide whether or not to list a discussion. I'd be fine with doing that, but I just don't know how to write it. It reminds me of the old line about pornography: "I know it when I see it." To me, it just seems like common sense that discussions do not to be listed here unless the result genuinely seems to be unclear or controversial. Hopefully, the RfC will bring enough new eyes here to figure this out. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

PS: I'm looking closely at where you said: "If you simply are trying to change the wording in the first step of hoping that it might affect change, let me know, and I'll support it." (Hey, I'll tell you anything to get you to support! Just kidding!) Seriously, I'm not sure what a "first step" really means, but I do intend it as advice, as opposed to as a sure-fire algorithm by which to decide whether or not to list something. Yes, I realize that editors may still list lots of discussions after adding the language that I proposed. But my hope is that, first, it would provide them with some guidance, and second, that it would provide some guidance for subsequent discussion in the event of a future dispute over listings. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Another thought: I think it's useful to look at the context of the sentence under discussion in this RfC. Taken with the sentence that comes immediately after it, it reads: "Please note that most discussions do not need formal closure. Where consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion, provided the discussion has been open long enough for a consensus to form." To me, that means that, where consensus is clear, any editor coming upon the discussion has a choice: they can either (1) go ahead and close it, or (2) come to this noticeboard and ask someone else to close it. I believe that the language I propose in this RfC indicates that (2) is unhelpful under those circumstances. What I keep seeing here in this talk is (2) happening, then someone else complains about the imposition on their time, and then the listing editor replies that closing would be easy, so stop complaining. And that worries me: it's like a few people are deciding that it's easy for someone else, and yet not doing what they think is easy, themselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:RFC says this:

There are several ways that RfCs end: the question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly), the RfC participants can agree to end it, it can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor, or it may be moved to another dispute resolution forum, such as mediation. Most RfCs do not benefit from formal closure. If the matter is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. However, if the issue is contentious or consensus remains unclear, formal closure is advisable. Requests for closure can be posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.

I think it is important for the guideline and this page to provide similar advice. (Along those lines, I'm a little concerned about the 30-day and 7-day advice on this page.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing those things out. Although I'll leave the 30-day and 7-day issue for another discussion, I think that the passage you quoted actually gives a pretty strong case for the language proposed in this RfC. And the fact that it says "most" there seems to me to be very relevant to what jc37 asked. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It states it "there" for the same reason it states it "here". Some editor happened to use that word. That doesn't make it factually correct. (indeed, if someone were to use "most" in an article, I wonder how long til someone else came along and tagged it ? : )

While it isn't "quite" weasel words, I think it's rather close to being so. And when I consider some arguements of late concerning this page, I think that to question using "most" may be relevant.

That all aside, a consensual discussion may be had on a talk page and it needn't necessarily be an RfC. Does the fact it is a discussion make it a consensual one? If it's a consensual one, need it be labelled an RfC? The fundamental issue UNDER this all is that we're starting to apply labels to things in wiki-speak when we really don't need to and shouldn't need to.

Not every discussion needs to be "closed". - That is, I believe a factual statement, or at least something which seems to have general acceptance in common practice. Why do we need to make it an arguement of indefinite value by using the word "most"? Wouldn't neutral wording be more in line with the wiki-way?

And so the second sentence, following more neutral text, should be something reciprocal in wording: And so not every discussion needs to be listed here for formal closure.

I said something similar above when I suggested: "Please note that not every discussion needs formal closure, and consequently not every discussion needs to be listed here."

Either way, we need to jettison "most". - jc37 07:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back and expanding on your thoughts. I've already discussed much of these issues directly above, but I'll say that, in my opinion, your argument is both (1) a reasonable one, and (2) not really dispositive to this RfC. As I've already said, this RfC is about adding the proposed language, and responses subsequent to your initial comment in the RfC suggest a lack of consensus for deleting or replacing "most" in the existing language (see, for example, North8000's support statement). So, what do we do with this, regarding consensus in this RfC? Your argument here does not find fault with saying that not every discussion needs to be listed here; indeed, you conditionally support it. The sticking point for you is a word that was the consensus language for a long time, before this RfC opened, and other editors have opposed changing it in this RfC. And the editor whose concerns prompted this RfC has stated that he now has no objection to the proposal. I don't think it's a valid reason for opposition to this proposal, but it's a valid reason for making a separate proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

As you (the nom) have indicated that this is not a part of this rfc (and agree that it is a reasonable change), I went ahead and was bold. - jc37 17:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that was bold indeed! You'll see that I made some subsequent edits. We'll see if there is any push-back. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, the talk thread directly below this one is an interesting case study that supports the proposal here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that the above thread misses the the most common reason that non-adimns doe not close RFC's which is being cautious/careful. North8000 (talk) 13:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cunard is still adding dozens of requests

I see the long discussion from last December. I see that User:Cunard is still adding fifty discussions at a time.

Cunard, you say above that you carefully review each one individually. I am beginning to doubt how significant the review is. Of the—was that 55? in a single edit—RFC and MFD discussions that you added in that diff, how many others did you consider but reject? If "most" discussions (that's what the page says) should not be listed here, is there an even longer list of discussions that you considered and decided not to list? Or are you listing maybe 90% of the ones you find, despite the page saying that fewer than half of all RFCs should be posted here?

I would strongly prefer that you stop doing this. Would you consider not posting any discussions here yourself (unless it's a discussion that you have been personally involved in, like any other editor), but instead posting an invitation to the discussion's participants to post their own request if they want to request outside assistance? This would help the page and its small group of volunteers focus their efforts on discussions where their help will be wanted, appreciated, and beneficial, and it would teach those editors how to use the process themselves, which would be valuable for their future dispute resolution efforts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with the closure requests being added. Number 57 21:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I also have no problem with the closure requests being added. My admin tasks are generally in the world of the filespace, so I come to this board to find new admin tasks to take on. Every request that Cunard lists is usually well thought out, including specific information from the RFC, and usually includes the direct request for closure posted on the RFC. I don't think hounding Cunard every few months is reasonable. There is no consensus for this process to change, nor should there be. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been watching here since that earlier discussion, and I have to say that it appears to me that, as Number 57 and TLSuda say, the noticeboard seems to be operating smoothly, even with the numerous listings. It seems to me that if the editors and administrators doing the closes are not having problems, then there isn't a problem. (On the other hand, if, hypothetically, there is anyone watching here who would like to be an additional hand in making closes, but who has been dissuaded from doing so because of there being too many listings, it would be interesting to hear from them.) Every now and then (and not very often), I've seen a listing by Cunard where another editor has specifically objected to the listing, and I'd suggest just deleting or archiving the single listing in the rare cases where that occurs. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Number 57, TLSuda, and Tryptofish, particularly with TLSuda's comment that "I don't think hounding Cunard every few months is reasonable" and Tryptofish's comment that "the noticeboard seems to be operating smoothly, even with the numerous listings".

Here are four recently closed RfCs:

1. An RfC at Talk:Guy Fawkes Night/Archive 5#RFC:Ambiguous birth date for William? was closed in favor of one side even though the vote count was also split 3–3. (ANRFC closure request)
2. In a second RfC, Talk:John Anthony Brooks#Request for Comment was split 5–4 in favor of using "American" instead of "German-American. The RfC closed in favor of "German-American". The side with fewer votes triumphed based on policy. (ANRFC closure request)
3. At Talk:Coat of arms of Mauritius#RfC: Which coat of arms should be used?, three editors voted for "Support for Kingroyos work". None voted for "Support for Escondites work". Clearly, Kingroyos' work should be inserted into the article, correct? No.

   A passing observer would think, at first glance, that there is a strong consensus at Talk:Coat of arms of Mauritius#RfC: Which coat of arms should be used? for "Support for Kingroyos work". But two closers found that there was insufficient consensus to use Kingroyos' work due to accuracy concerns mentioned in the discussion.

   Without outside involvement, an inaccurate work might have been inserted into the article against community consensus. The RfC initiator repeatedly reverted the RfC closes by two uninvolved admins, but stopped after a warning. The close was upheld at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive263#RfC closure review: Coat of arms of Mauritius. (ANRFC closure request)

4. At Talk:File Allocation Table/Archive 6#RFC on length and splits, the closer wrote:

   Initially, I was disinclined to formally close this RfC as it seems to have engendered relatively little participation, could be better characterised as a content dispute between two editors, and the discussion has clearly run its course. However, a request at WP:ANRFC and subsequent disaffection on Talk:File Allocation Table makes it clear that some degree of formal closure is desired, and perhaps necessary, to allow interested parties to move forward. It should come as no surprise to those concerned that I deduce no consensus from the discussion below, the ratio being roughly 3-3. I note that the compromise solution offered by rolf h nelson broadly supported the idea of splitting some content, but not to the point of tipping the balance in favour of the original proposal.

   Although there was no consensus in the discussion, the closer suggested a path forward in what seemed to be an intractable dispute.

   (ANRFC closure request)

In the first three discussions, a passerby who did not read the discussions might think the consensus is clear. "No consensus" for #1 and #2. "Support for Kingroyos work" for #3. But the actual consensus is different. I list all discussions where I think a closure might be helpful in resolving a dispute or recording the consensus. In some cases, I might be wrong. In others, I am not. When I agree that I am wrong, I withdraw my closure request. When I disagree that I am wrong, I elaborate on my closure request.

The closers at ANRFC have been doing superb work in resolving difficult disputes. I am grateful for the time they take in reading contentious discussions and stepping in to render a decision even when faced with possible bitter protestations from involved editors. Closers, I respect and admire your dedication and hard work. Thank you.

Cunard (talk) 07:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

In fairness to WhatamIdoing, I do not think the post here is really what Wikipedia defines as WP:HOUNDING. I think it was a good faith expression of concern. Myself, I had good faith concerns a couple of months ago in the earlier discussion. Subsequent observation has convinced me that my previous concerns were mostly unfounded, and for that, I apologize to Cunard. As long as Cunard will continue to make a good faith effort of his own to only list discussions where he has a reason to think that an uninvolved closer would be helpful, I think we may be able to wrap this discussion up. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Cunard, I know that some of your unrequested RFC closures are helpful. I also know that some of them are not. But I am asking you a fairly simple, direct question: Of the expired RFCs you look at, what percentage of discussions do you list here? The correct answer will likely involve a two-digit percentage. It will not involve selected anecdotes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I think I'm the most recent closer to comment (here) that one of the listings may not have been necessary. In this case, the article had already been changed after the discussion and nobody objected. That said, my comment was intended to be informational, not a criticism, and I don't think that Cunard was unreasonable to list it here given how the !votes were labelled. More generally, nearly all of the listings here do indeed need uninvolved closers, so I think Cunard does a good job. :-) Sunrise (talk) 04:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, Sunrise. I am grateful for the strong work you do at ANRFC in providing detailed closing rationales. Here are some more thoughts from me about my ANRFC posts. Here is an excerpt:

I list at ANRFC RfCs that would benefit from a close.

For example, at this close request about Mariah Carey's birth year, I listed several reasons for my posting that request. One reason was:

It is best to formally close this discussion to establish a consensus version has been reached to prevent future edit wars that may occur. A formally closed discussion allows editors to point to the concise close rather than the lengthy discussion to show future editors what the consensus is. A formal close from an uninvolved editor cannot be dismissed as easily as an unclosed, lengthy discussion.

The recent page history of Mariah Carey shows that several editors repeatedly reversed the consensus version implemented by Moxy (example), who was involved in the discussion. The close by Armbrust (talk · contribs) now allows editors who are enforcing the consensus to point to the closing statement by an uninvolved editor if they are accused of edit warring.

Cunard (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Of the expired RFCs you look at, what percentage of discussions do you list here? The correct answer will likely involve a two-digit percentage. – 70%–80%.

I remove RfCs from my "add to ANRFC list" when I am certain a close won't be helpful to ensure that discussions like the four anecdotes I listed above aren't weeded out before consideration by an uninvolved editor.

Cunard (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, in my experience—and if you go look, you will find that I have been one of the most active maintainers of the WP:RFC guideline for years , so I do know more than the average editor about it—less than half of RFCs need some outside person to tell them "the answer". Most of the time, it's either perfectly obvious to the participants that there's no consensus, or it's perfectly obvious to them what the consensus is. I emphasize those words because what's obvious to the participants isn't always obvious to someone who's just reading the one discussion (and not, for example, the participants' talk pages, the changes made to the article during the RFC, the relevant WikiProject pages, and all the other sections on the article's talk page). Based on your numbers and on some of the RFCs you've chosen to list, I think that you are being overly aggressive in sending discussions to ANRFC. I think you should aim for a reduction.

One particularly friendly way to reduce needless listings here is to start politely asking participants what they want. Getting "sent" to ANRFC without any consultation is going to make some participants feel you don't respect them as adults who can resolve their own differences. Being "invited" to post at ANRFC if they want to have an outsider sum up the discuss will feel very different to these people. Also, it will help them better understand what the closers' role is (e.g., not some bureaucratic enforcer, not a magic content fairy) and how to make such requests themselves in the future. I strongly recommend that you try it out. Empowering and educating the RFC participants really can do nothing but improve the ultimate outcomes (=what happens after the closer leaves the page, which is what really matters in the end). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

This suggestion has been discussed before and considered too bureaucratic by Armbrust and me. Wikipedia:Requested moves, Wikipedia:Non-free content review discussions, AfDs, MfDs, CfDs, and TfDs are several examples where uninvolved closers assess the consensus in discussions. Editors who "feel you don't respect them as adults who can resolve their own differences" when such discussions are closed by uninvolved editors are rare. (Instead, if a participant has a complaint about a close at for example an AfD or a CfD, it is usually about the close's merits; that is, they believe the closer assessed the consensus incorrectly.)

RfCs and the previous fora are similar in that an editor took the initiative to start a formal proposal. A formal proposal is generally made when there is a dispute or a desire to make a significant change. Formally recording the consensus in these instances is helpful in providing a succinct summary of the discussion's consensus from an uninvolved editor that can be pointed to if a dispute arises in the future (example). There is little evidence that offense is caused when uninvolved editors assess the consensus at RfCs, just as there is little evidence that offense is caused when uninvolved editors assess the consensus in formal discussions in other fora.

You want to reduce the number of listings I post here. I want to maintain the number of listings I post here so that discussions like the four listed above are always reviewed. These are fundamentally different positions, so we must agree to disagree since the participants in this discussion do not see a problem with my posts.

Cunard (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

You believe that asking them whether they want help is "too bureaucratic", but that sending around some unknown person, who is probably unfamiliar with the subject area, to Officially™ enshrine the outcome of a single discussion, on the off chance that here might, someday in the future, be a dispute—a dispute that somehow isn't going to be valid, even though "consensus can change" is a policy that applies even to "formal" RFCs—is somehow not bureaucratic? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Cunard (talk) 06:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It has always seemed reasonable to me to ask, as WhatamIdoing suggests. I think that we can get away from the concern about bureaucracy by looking upon asking as something that is not mandatory, but that is good advice in some circumstances. I'll repeat what I said before, that the noticeboard seems to be operating smoothly, so I do not believe that "unasked" listings have become a source of disruption. But I would suggest that it can be useful to look at some context before making a listing here. Have the editors at the page moved forward with edits that constitute a de facto recognition of consensus? Or has the RfC simply expired with nothing much happening? The latter is a far stronger case for listing here, than is the former. Also, I think that, once an uninvolved closer makes a close, the response of editors at a page is a good indicator of whether or not those editors appreciate or resent the close. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries, Tryptofish. Thank you for having the open-mindedness to reconsider your earlier position after observing the noticeboard for some time.

Cunard (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Good faith concerns assuaged by good faith responses lead me to believe that sometimes, Wikipedia noticeboards do work smoothly. We all deserve a  high-five; big thanks to Cunard for curating ANRFC, closers for doing the hard stuff, and WhatamIdoing for caring about the project. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with all you have said. But you missed one person: Armbrust (talk · contribs), who is the most dedicated clerk and closer of the board. Armbrust's contributions to the board are invaluable in making sure the board functions smoothly.

  Bad Salvidrim! ;)

  Cunard (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Specific Question - Bot didn't remove tag

I closed an RFC this evening. (More precisely, I closed one of several RFCs.) One of the RFCs was more than 30 days old, but the tag hadn't yet been removed by the bot. In that case, should the closer remove the tag? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Yes. However, the fact that the tag was still there may indicate that the closure was premature, unless something like WP:SNOW applied. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I verified that the RFC was more than a month old. I will go back and pull the RFC tag. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the bot should have removed the tag. @Legoktm: Any idea why it didn't? The RfC was created at Special:Diff/616538603 and picked up at Special:Diff/616541111. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Lack of archiving

I've noticed that discussions that were marked as {{Done}} 36+ hours ago still aren't being archived. Looking at the source code for the top section of the page (where archive bot calls go), I don't see anything except {{User:MiszaBot/config}} which is set to archive things only that haven't been touched in 40 days. Am I missing something or should we add the template to call the bot (ClueBot III?) that archives sections once they have been marked as {{Done}}, {{Closed}}, {{Resolved}}, etc? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 04:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. It looks like this has been done manually until now. Is there some delay built in? I would say it should archive sections marked done, etc. after 24 hours and continue archiving sections not touched in 40 days. –xeno^talk 13:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

If that can be done, then it would be great, as manual archiving is a pain. I asked about this at Help talk:Archiving a talk page#Auto-archiving of WP:ANRFC, but no-one responded (I think I asked somewhere else ages ago, but can't remember where exactly).

One caveat I would say is to archive only after {{Done}} is used, as {{Close}} is used when there is a list of requests under one heading (e.g. here), and could result in a section being archived when there were still open requests. We'd have to clarify this usage at the top of the page. Number 57 13:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so this raises a question, which templates should it be archiving on and which ones shouldn't it be? I'd say that {{Done}}, {{Closed}} , and {{Resolved}} should be triggers for archiving. I'd say {{Tick}}, and {{Close}} should not be. There is actually a list of them on Category:Resolution templates if anyone wants to look through and see if there are others that should trigger archiving. Maybe {{Not done not likely}} should be a trigger? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I think we should encourage only one to be used – I would discourage the use of {{Closed}} (or its inclusion in the coding), as there is the potential for confusion with  Closed. We could specify in the heading that {{Done}} (which appears to be the most common one) should be used, but I don't see the problem with including {{Resolved}} in the archiving code in case anyone uses it. I think for the not done ones, it might be worth just letting them drop off the page – in most cases it's because someone's requested it too soon. I don't recall seeing {{Not done not likely}} being used. Number 57 15:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, how about an {{Already done}} →  Already done? Should we make the changes to the heading any duration of time before activating the bot to archive those? I'm also fairly surprised that Equazcion's User:Equazcion/OneClickArchiver.js doesn't seem to work. I believe that would be a good alternative so we could archive manually in one click stuff that was marked as done 12+ hours ago or whatever. Thoughts? Objections? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a good thing to include. Not sure what you mean by the second question? No objections to anything that makes archiving this easier! Number 57 16:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Technical 13: So, it appears that the archiving went wrong. Cluebot archived both sections on the talk page, and everything on the project page, including the introduction! Not sure if this was the bot malfunctioning or a problem with the way you set it up? Number 57 12:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I see that. I think I know what caused the issue and I believe that I have corrected it for the next pass. Apparently ClueBot comes through at about 5:30AM EST, so I'll be up bright and early waiting for it to archive tomorrow and see if my change fixed it. Yay... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I also added "headerlevel=3", which I suspect is necessary to prevent the "lede" from being archived. That said, I'm not sure how ClueBot III works or why it was archived in the first place, considering it's an undated section. —WOFall (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that, and yes, I expect it will help. I think your edit there hit the nail on the head. It may have been archiving the whole level 2 section based on the fact that at least one of the level 3 subsections was marked as done and the last edit to the page was more than 12 hours ago. We'll see since it seems no-one really knows how ClueBot operates anymore... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The bot again archived both threads, even though neither of them was 1024 hours (or 42 days 16 h) old; and again, it sent the archived threads to Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archives/ 1 and not to Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 1. I reverted again. What is basically wrong with letting lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs) archive this page? It worked quite happily the one time that it was allowed to do so, and I see no problems with that way that it did it. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This is slightly different; now we're talking about this talk page. The first thread was old enough to be archived, and this one has a raw {{close}} which triggered the archivenow filter. As for the incorrect naming, on the actual Project page I removed some whitespace after the "=", which I think fixes this (we'll see), but didn't realize it was configured for this talk page also. Indeed, I think lowercase sigmabot III alone should be fine for this talk page. —WOFall (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible that the OneClick Archiving doesn't work because the heading levels on the project page are third level (i.e. ===) instead of the usual second-level (==)? Number 57 14:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, I didn't realize Red was only talking about the talk page here. I really don't care about how the talk page is archived. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The problem is that the number of sections is increasingly growing, there are now over 75 sections on the page, and there is no reason to leave ones on the page for 40 days that have been marked as done. When I started closing requests last week, there were 36 requests, and all were open - there are now 86 requests. This is a growth of 50 in a week, in 6 weeks (42 days), there will be over 350 at this rate and no-one will be able to open the page. We need to get the ones that are done into the archive and off the page. I'll try emailing Cobi, and see if I can't find them to find out why ClueBot isn't working as intended. I also tried the __NEWSECTIONLINK__ thing to archive with Equazcion's User:Equazcion/OneClickArchiver script, but that apparently only works on level two headers. I'll research that option some more and maybe, I'll write a modification to that script so we can use it for this. I'll get back to everyone on that. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Sweet! I spent most of the day yesterday working on making improvements to two script, the AfD closing script and Equazcion's User:Equazcion/OneClickArchiver script! As can be seen in the archival of this archival to its archive page, User:Technical 13/SandBox/OneClickArchiver.js seems to be working correctly. I'll drop a note on Equazcion's talk page directly and see if I can get him to update the script. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 11:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

ANRFC UserScript

As I briefly mentioned in Lack of archiving above, I spent some time yesterday working on the AfD closing script's sandbox. Based on what I did there, I'm fairly certain I can build a modular version of that script and include an ANRFC closing function. Is that something anyone else would be interested in? If so, I'd love some feedback on design ideas or things that it "must" (not) have included. Thanks! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Technical 13: Hey T13, thanks for your work on archiving so far. Much appreciated. Would this new script close an RFC and also mark the relevant discussion as  Done on ANRFC? Or is it intended to do something else? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 17:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• It might eventually be able to do that. It would be heavily based on the sandbox version of the existing CloseAFD script which, when in edit mode, with a single click, will take the contents of a discussion and wrap it in the {{subst:At}} and {{subst:Ab}} templates (which would be adapted to use {{Archive top}} and {{Archive bottom}} repsectively) and with a series of simple popups pre-fill the edit window to make the close and click "show preview" for you. I will need to do some research, but I don't see why I couldn't make it do everything in one shot like the FFU script does. Examples of how the sandbox version of the CloseAFD script works can be seen in the request to make the sandbox live on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD.js#Protected_edit_request_on_2_December_2014 — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive. Cunard (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)